2 Samuel 16:9,11 - "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head...let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him."

Matthew 7:15 - “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Matthew 24:11 - “…and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

Thursday, March 19, 2009

The Search for the Watchdog's Identity

Readers - in this post I'm simply going to give you the facts as I have them regarding what the church and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (JSO) and the State Attorney have done to uncover the identity of the owner of Watchdog blog. As you will see, the events and the timing make it seem very likely that the identify of the Watchdog blog was given to the administration of the FBC Jacksonville - after completion of a criminal investigation by the JSO - which was conducted after the church administrator, John Blount, III, called the JSO to report Internet criminal activity.

This post is going to lay out facts as I know them at this point.

Wade Burleson has made a post today that asks some very pointed questions given the facts that I have outlined below.

I will offer no analysis in this post, or assign any motives...just the facts and chronology and documents and video as I have them from facts gathered from discussions with the JSO, the State Attorney's office, and a review of publicly available documents.

Whether you agree with this blog and its contents or whether you think I'm a villain for blogging as I have or if you think I have raised valid points: whichever side you fall on with regard to this blog and me, perhaps, PERHAPS you will find these facts troubling.

But I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Here is what I know:

September 2008: Mac delivers sermons in advance of the Chest of Joash Sunday which was 9/28/08. During September I was very critical of some of his tactics used in his sermons to compel people to give. I was critical especially of Mac's attempt to raise $1,000,000 for necessary repairs of our facilities, including roof repair and chiller replacements. I was critical of how Mac crossed the line from challenging his church to outright criticism and abuse for not meeting his expectations (here, here, and here). I called out Mac for his phony declaration that the churches in Rome were "satellite churches" in a weak attempt to sell us on his satellite concept. I was particularly critical of the arrogant and abusive manner in which Mac demanded we give $1 million in two weeks else we would go into debt. I was critical of the need to raise $1 million when other non-budget expenditures were made earlier in the year that could have been used to repair our facilities. I encouraged people to NOT give money to the special offering, because they have already given the money in the budget and that facility maintenance and repairs are not something for which a special offering should be held. No lies or slander - just hard hitting analysis of Mac's own words with audio and video clips.

9/28/08: Chest of Joash Service - Mac delivers his version of "And the Iron Did Swim". Commitments are collected, special offering is collected. The special offering for the facility repairs is about 1/4 of the amount asked for. Budget committments were not reported by the church but rumors were that they were unusually low.

9/29/09: The Monday AFTER Chest of Joash, at 2:30 pm, Church Administrator John Blount calls the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office to file a complaint about "an on-going Internet incident that has possible criminal overtones". Click here to read the investigation report. The officer that responds to the complaint is JSO Detective Robert A. Hinson, a long-time member of FBC Jax and member of the church security detail.

It has been confirmed that Detective Hinson sent subpoenas to the State Attorney's office for approval to be issued to Google to have Google release the IP addresses and identities of the following Google customers: Sean Lyons, FBC Jax Watchdog, and Tiffany Croft. These subpoenas were approved by of the State Attorney's office and sent to Google.

It has also been confirmed that Detective Hinson issued another subpoena to the State Attorney for approval, to have Comcast release the names of several of the IP addresses provided by Google. The subpoenas are approved by the State Attorney office, and the owner of the FBC Jax Watchdog blog is released by Comcast to Detective Hinson - himself a member of FBC Jacksonville.

The dates of the subpoenas have not been confirmed, nor have copies of the subpoenas been obtained. But the issuance of the subpoenas and confirmation that the identity of the owner of the Watchdog blog WAS released by Comcast to Detective Hinson as a result of the subpoenas is a fact confirmed by at least two separate parties.

11/13/08: Detective Hinson closes his investigation that he opened on 9/29/08, and states in the report: "...this investigation was closed after no criminal activity was discovered on this reported incident." Click here to see copy of the JSO report.

11/28/08: TWO WEEKS after Detective Hinson closes his case, John Blount and Kevin King hand deliver a letter to me, accusing me of owning the blog site, making accusations of multiple sins of being derogatory, divisive, destructive, and demeaning to the ministry of FBC Jacksonville. The letter provides two trespass warning forms, and informs me that my wife and I are "...prohibited from coming on the Church grounds or premises for any reason except the meeting above described" meaning we must first have met with the Discipline Committee of the church. We are sternly warned in the letter that "Any violation of this Notice [trespass warnings] will result in appropriate sanctions."

For this discussion of how the identity of the Watchdog was discovered, the most important portion of this letter from FBC Jacksonville to the owner of the Watchdog blog is this, in the 2nd paragraph:

"You have been positively identified to us, by name and address, as the owner of fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com, a blog site you own, manage and/or control. We know you have authored and/or permitted to be authored the contents thereof for many months."

11/29/08: I have blogged previously about what happened after the letter was delivered. The church discipline committee demanded I meet with them, but the meeting never took place as I requested copies of the bylaws, representation at the meeting, and asked for the basis of the allegations as conditions for the meeting; the committee refused all three requests. The church declared this matter to be "ecclesiastical" in nature although they had full knowledge the church administration (John Blount) had contacted the JSO previously alleging criminal behavior to be associated with the blog.

12/3/08: John Blount and the committee refused entrance to the church to my wife and me, preventing us from watching our daughter sing a solo with her ensemble in church that night unless we agreed to meet with the committee first. See attached letter. Since the committee was not interested in meeting any of our reasonable requests prior to such a meeting, we naturally declined to meet, and thus were told we were not welcomed to come in the doors of our own church to accompany our daughter to watch her sing with her ensemble that night.

12/7/08: At 10:00 am, while most FBC Jax members are in Sunday School, the church executes formal trespass warnings against my wife and I with JSO Officer C.R. Butler. Click here to see this official trespass warning that is on file at the JSO. Notice the reason for the trespass warning being issued against both my wife and I is "church misconduct". My wife, a faithful member and church volunteer for 20 years, who has committed no church misconduct, is banned from the church property for "church misconduct".

12/14/08: My wife did not wish for my children to harmed by this action by our church administration, so she continued to bring the kids to their church youth functions, but because of the trespass warning against her she would drop the kids off and stay in her car and wait for the worship services to be over. She wanted very badly to accompany my daughter to the Travis Cottrell concert and sent Blount an email asking permission to accompany her daughter to the concert - Blount didn't reply until Monday (understandably since it was a Sunday email) so my wife sat in her car waiting for the concert to be over. My wife was banned from her church for doing nothing other than associating with her husband.

2/1/09: In mid-December we began visiting other churches. After visiting a new church for about 5 weeks, and after absolutely no contact from John Blount in over six weeks, we decide to join our new church on 2/1/09. The last communication I had with Blount was around 12/15/08.

2/23/09: The deacons hold a special meeting to consider the "Deacon's Resolution 2009-1" that condemns me, and contains a false "whereas" statement of fact concerning the terms that we left to join our new church. We did NOT leave FBC Jax after I was told we would be disciplined by the deacons; its quite the opposite. We left the church, and THEN Blount calls to let me know the discipline committee would be disciplining us. According to A.C. Soud, Jr. the deacons unanimously ratify his resolution. Several deacons that were present stated that they were told the blog owner was suspected of committing crimes such as stealing the Brunson's email and/or video taping or taking pictures of Mrs. Brunson, and that there may be an on-going investigation with the State Attorney's office.

2/25/09: Judge A.C. Soud in the business meeting before the service reads the Deacon's Resolution 2009-1, and Chairman of the Deacons Keith Hill calls for a vote from the congregation by asking members to stand (click here to watch video of the resolution recitation by A.C. Soud). The church confirms the resolution by an overwhelming majority. The church has hyperlinked the resolution on the main page of the church website.

2/26/09: I made several attempts to contact John Blount to inquire about the baseless, slanderous accusations made to the deacons about stalking, taking pictures or video of Mrs. Brunson, and stealing of their mail. Blount never returned any phone calls or emails.

Several questions that I have:

1. On what basis did John Blount call the JSO concerning Internet activity with "possible criminal overtones"? Did the timing have anything to do with the Chest of Joash service and the committments and special offerings? Did he call the JSO on his own volition, or was he directed by a superior to make the phone call to allege criminal activity? Was the purpose of this call to truly allege criminal activity, or was it to initiate a process by which the identity of the Watchdog could be obtained?

2. On what basis did Detective Hinson issue subpoenas for the identity of the blog? Are not criminal allegations necessary for such a subpoena? What were they?

3. Why was Detective Hinson, a member of the FBC Jax, the officer assigned to a case investigating a possible criminal matter involving a blog critical of his own pastor? Should not he have recused himself from a criminal investigation involving his own church and his own pastor?

4. Who was it that "positively identified" the blog owner's identity to the six men that signed the November 25th letter? Was it Detective Hinson? If so, and if the detective's investigation found that there was no criminal activity, would not the file be closed and records destroyed and the private records from Comcast destroyed? Is it common practice to release a citizen's private Internet records to an aggrieved party after an investigation is closed and no criminal activity is found?

215 comments:

As a Baptist for more than 30 years I am deeply concern, troubled, and disturbed by the lack of true spirituality from SBC pulpits. The root problem is our Baptists pastors were taught in the seminaries about becoming spiritually mature by helping God--helping God DOING DOING big projects; raising money FOR GOD; bigger money, bigger projects, bigger building; sophisticated gimmicks--manipulating members to give at least 10% of their money in order to HELP GOD doing things. This heresy is very dangerous. Coming from seminaries and by means of the pulpits such as Jax deluding people that giving a lot of money doing big projects=spirituality. This DOING DOING SPIRITUALITY is a recipe for spiritual impotence.

Dr.Dog It's almost impossible to comprehend whether FBC Jax is a Church or the Gestapo!!!.Det.Hinson himself could be in deep trouble with the Sheriff over this debacle and just as Matt blogged Pope Mac keeps above the frey,insulated by a bunch of cowardly yes men who wouldn't know anything about the Bible even if Jesus himself slapped them with one!!!.My prediction is coming true "WORSE AND WORSE" it is getting "WORSE AND WORSE"!!!..The SBC is just another denomination that is going to become irrelevant like many of the other U.S.denominations which have and are being infiltrated by decievers who could care less about the mission of Christ and more about power,prestige, personal privileges and "money,money,money and MORE MONEY"..And believe me they could care even less about the true sheep or whom they stomp on...Remember Mac "God will not be mocked" or outsmarted by "YOU" or any other leader;; "YOU CAN BE ASSURED OF THAT"!!!

"Did the timing have anything to do with the Chest of Joash service and the committments and special offerings?"

This is what happens, when one does not truly trust Our Lord Jesus Christ, but is swayed by ones own emotions. The cause for the low commitments to the Chest of Joash was 99% due to economic conditions. And as Christians, we are to accept that this is God's doing. Only The Holy Spirit can compel or motivate people to give and not any edicts or grand standing from the pulpit. We have to acknowledge the sovereignty of Our Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit in our lives.

My gut feeling of all this is, Pastor Mac just wanted all this to end, in which ever way was expedient to them. I am afraid it was his anguish over how to handle this issue that drove him and fbc jax leadership to this point. My question is, why was bad advice given to fbc jax leadership on how to handle this issue? It's all Man and no God in this.

I truly am not angry at anyone. Either at Pastor Mac or his supporters. This is what happens when one acts outside the bounds of wisdom as laid by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Could this be said of WD too? Possibly. But the questions asked on this blog, though they appear divisive, critical and sarcastic, are only a reflection of life in Church. Why do we need to run away from such questions? Even if they are troubling. Can not God be glorified on how the questions if answered properly, bring grace and mercy from on high? And truly the wisdom in answering such questions only comes from The Holy Spirit and The Spirit appears to work when one humbles themselves.

I do wish to say a great big THANK YOU to the deacons who had the backbone and the integrity to let me know what was said in the deacon's meeting on Feb 23rd. If I had not known what was said in that meeting, I would never have known to go poking around to find out that this was NOT just an eccliastical matter as I was told by John Blount in writing - but that it started as a criminal matter, with criminal allegations, a JSO investigation, and subpoenas for my private Internet records by a JSO detective who was one of my own fellow church members...so deacons I do appreciate you more than you know. Without your information we would not be able to shine a light on the means and methods of FBC Jax and John Blount, III to identify me and throw my wife and I out of the church.

Anon 9:25am..Please tell me in what way was Dr.Dog wrong and then tell me in what way is Mac responsible?.Was the way inwhich FBC Jax handled this legal or illegal?..What is the responsibility of the greater servant against the lesser servant???."Thanks"

anon 8:55 - you summed up the entire matter with your comment "Why do we need to run away from such questions? Even if they are troubling. Can not God be glorified on how the questions if answered properly, bring grace and mercy from on high?"

Bottom line was, Mac was above being questioned (pride and arrogance) so he and his yes men dug in and went after anyone that had questions. He then ignored anonymous emails, began attacking people who had questions from the pulpit, had Vines come in for his infamous sermon where he defended Mac, high salaries and spit at anonmyous letter/emails.

All of this. ALL of this. Boils down to legitimate questions being asked and the church doing whatever it had to do NOT to answer them. (Including forcing members to have a blog to ask the questions and to shine the light of day on the pastor and staff's actions, which when scrutinized, caused all the remaining problems and questions.)

To sum up. Mac won. He said he would not answer the questions and he didn't. Victory came with a price for him it seems. He chose to have a blog about him for the rest of his life in return. I have to admire the man's conviction and unwavering commitment to ignoring legitate concerns about his tenure at FBC Jax. He has reaped what he has sown. So be it.

Now, he seems to want to shut down the blog and has used church staff, JSO detectives and maybe the SA office to identify the blogger despite no criminal wrongdoing.

Why in the world doesn't someone call for Mac's resignation? He does this in every church he pastors and as long as he gets by with it, it will only get worse. He and Debbie are very very greedy. It shows in their dress, their cars, their house and their whole demeanor and lifestyle.

I'm thinking that perhaps this went from bad to worse because the preacher maybe gave it over to someone else to handle for him. Right to start with, as was mentioned on another topic page, he gave the duty of keeping track of his e-mail to his wife. Now let's see what may have happened next. She is fiercely protective of her husband -- do you remember what he called her? He called her a "bulldog in lipstick." I didn't make that up, that's what the preacher called his wife. So the bulldog in lipstick decides to shield her husband from the e-mails she deemed inappropriate or unimportant. So maybe she deleted those e-mails we all wrote. Got it so far?

Then next, maybe when the bulldog in lipstick heard about the blog she checked it out and DID NOT like what she read therein. So she appoints one or more people to jump into the blog with their not- so-very-nice comments about the WD and other comment-posters. Perhaps up to this point the bulldog in lipstick had handled it all by herself. But like someone who has let their campfire in the forest get out of hand and tries to single-handedly take care of it, she realized that the whole forest could go up in flames and she needed to call for help!

Maybe it is at this point she goes to someone for help. Now they're really angry that the WD just keeps blogging and he's not scared away so they come up with the church discipline threat. Oh my, that didn't work!

What to do, what to do??? Alright, now we're going to get aggressive and I submit that someone got a little too aggressive and overdid it with "legal" action.

Maybe that's the way it happened, maybe not. I'm thinking that the preacher probably didn't know what was going on until the fire had spread quite a lot. And maybe I'm being overly generous with the preacher.

Whatever way it happened, I hope we can all have the opportunity to read the whole truth and nothin' but the truth.

One thing remains the same throughout this whole mess and that is that the preacher could have stopped it as soon as he was aware of it. But he chose not to.

Anon 12:29pm....."And maybe I'm being overly generous with the preacher.".....Anon 12:01pm......"He does this in every church he pastors and as long as he gets by with it, it will only get worse. He and Debbie are very very greedy.It shows in their dress, their cars, their house and their whole demeanor and lifestyle."......I thank both Anon's for their blogs because it reveals and sums up the person who is "Mac Brunson"!!!...If anyone believes that the Fuhrer Mac did'nt know what was going on;;;Then their name is Alice;and their in wonderland!!!.Jesus said "you will know deceivers by their fruit"..And the only fruit I see coming from "MAC" "IS ROTTEN"!!!

Anon:12:29PM: Great scenario!! Probably a great deal of truth. Except the preacher kept getting angrier and angrier. Delivering abusive sermons early on. Even going out of town to complain to other churches and preachers about the "hot bed of legalism" we were. And how "bad" he had it here. No I maintain the preacher was in charge from the get go. Still is !! The buck stops with him.

The Buck Stops with Mac? I doubt that. Either the State Attorney investigates this mess and the buck stops with him/her. Or...more likely, the buck stops with Detective Hinson....or most likely, the buck stops with John Blount, III, who filed the criminal action/report from which subpoenas were requested and obtained.

Who is willing to take the fall? The State Attorney, Detective Hinson, or John Blount, III? You figure out who it is going to be. But no way King Mac goes down in this. It's Good to be 'da King.

WD, since you had friends who are active deacons at FBC, why would you have not taken your concerns to them in the first place? Also, if you are also an active or inactive deacon, could you have not brought up your concerns?

What a disgusting abuse of power here by Mac Brunson, John Blount, and Detective Hinson. How can anyone in the church support these actions? No matter what the Watchdog posted, there is nothing they can say to justify this unethical and probably illegal behavior. Watchdog, I hope you follow this out to the furthest extent of the law to bring these people to justice. Detective Hinson more than anyone should be forced to explain his actions here. What probable cause was there for insinuating that there may be 'criminal activity' on this blog? How can you even begin to justify invading the privacy of Tiffany Croft, who is not even a member of this church? You apparently think you are above the law because of your position. You sir are a disgrace to the badge you wear and have violated the trust of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and of all the citizens of Jacksonville.

Will the JSO be charging John Blount or FBCJAX for making a false statement, there was NO ILLEGAL activity by Watchdog. This stinks so bad.

Although, I have not agreed with the Watchdog about his way of going about here in such a public forum, I cannot believe in any way that how team Brunson and the staff and deacons have handled this is Biblical.

WD, since you had friends who are active deacons at FBC, why would you have not taken your concerns to them in the first place? Also, if you are also an active or inactive deacon, could you have not brought up your concerns?

Would that not have worked?

March 20, 2009 3:47 PM

I almost spewed my coffee reading this one. Folks just do not get how it works. Deacon's are the equivalent to janitors in a mega church. They are the rubber stamp guys and if they don't, they are out because they are not team players.

The pastor, high level staff and a few folks of influence make the decisions. You guys don't get it. It is Mac's organization. And those who brought him there will NEVER admit they made a mistake. They will go along with just about anything to save face. Trust me, I have seen it many times.

Hello Hiram - received your email, and most certainly I don't mind providing a response to your questions. I hope that you also have some questions for the administration of FBC Jax - but I'll answer your questions. As you told me I could, I am providing your comments in their entirety below. My responses will be in bold.

Dear Watchdog:

“ FBC Jax Watchdog said... Anon - can you please, please give us one "slanderous lie" of the Watchdog? Just one would be great. Thanks. Fri Mar 20, 01:45:00 AM 2009"

I am not a coward hiding behind a silly “Anonymous” or “WatchDog” petticoat. My name is Hiram Smith, and I’m volunteering the following three part answer to the pretentious request above that you made to “Anon”:

PART 1: “ FBC Jax Watchdog said... “I do wish to say a great big THANK YOU to the deacons who had the backbone and the integrity to let me know what was said in the deacon's meeting on Feb 23rd. If I had not known what was said in that meeting, I would never have known to go poking around to find out that this was NOT just an eccliastical matter as I was told by John Blount in writing - but that it started as a criminal matter, with criminal allegations, a JSO investigation, and subpoenas for my private Internet records by a JSO detective who was one of my own fellow church members...so deacons I do appreciate you more than you know. Without your information we would not be able to shine a light on the means and methods of FBC Jax and John Blount, III to identify me and throw my wife and I out of the church.”

Why did you write the useless and silly lie expressed in your words quoted above? Your assertion, “. . . and throw my wife and [I] out of the church.” is a bald-faced lie. Which you implicitly acknowledge in your exchange with the anon you call “JE” quoted in PART 2 below.

The deacons and church staff asked to meet with you in committee and in deacons meeting and you refused both invitations. You and your wife voluntarily moved your own membership letters to another church. That does not constitute throwing you and your wife “out of the church.” Who, other than Satan, would so blind your mind and eyes that you fail to recognize the utter deceitfulness imbedded in your own words?

Sorry Hiram, but your own question contains a lie about me. I did not refuse to meet with them. I agreed to meet with them if three very simple, reasonable requests were met by them. We were in effect thrown out of the church as they demanded that we meet with a committee of six men that I don't know, that have accused me of terrible sins of division in the church, to appear before a committee that I didn't know the power or authority over me or the process they were going to use; I had a deep suspicion that they had done something underhanded to violate my privacy to positively identify me. So to put such a request on me, that bans me AND my wife from the property until I meet with this committee on solely their terms was just a tactic to intimidate me to get me in front of the committee. And my wife, having absolutely nothing to do with this blog, was not deserving of a trespass warning issued by the church. Sorry, but in my book that is effectively throwing someone out of the church to place such unreasonable demands on a member. If you don't think so, that is fine and I see your point, but until you have your wife issued a JSO trespass warning for "church misconduct" when she has committed none, I think you might want to reserve judgment on how I view those events. Certainly to say we were thrown out of the church is not a lie on my part, it is a characterization of what their heavy-handed actions were and how they harmed my wife.

PART 2:Watchdog, in the following exchange you merely compounded the twist in your lying tongue/keyboard— There you go again. You are calling me a liar.

“ Anonymous said... You said that you moved your membership, but here you say they threw you out. Which is correct? March 20, 2009 9:28 AM”“ FBC Jax Watchdog said... Oh brother. Is that you JE? “Answer: Both. Threw my wife and I out with trespass warnings. We left, visited a few churches, and ended up joining another church. Did I really need to explain that to you? :)”“March 20, 2009 9:39 AM”

This question by Anonymous 9:28 was unambiguous and unmistakably clear–his question was about your church membership; therefore, your reply–“Both.” is simply another lie. Why did you refuse to admit the plain and simple truth when confronted with that simple and direct question.

Hiram: Both. Those are not mutually exclusive...they occured in sequence. One happened, then the other. Does that make sense? We were banned, thrown-from, prohibited, excluded, whatever you want to call it. That happened first. Then, at another point in time Hiram, we joined a church.

Banned, then joined a church. First one, then the other. That is why the answer is "Both".

The truth is that you and your wife were not thrown “out of the church,” nor “off of the property.” Your former church made church disciplinary decisions, which were deemed very justifiable at all levels of their decision-making steps within their polity rules. Their deliberative decisions resulted in you and your wife both being asked not to trespass on the property of your former church and the two of you complied.

We were not physically thrown off the property because we complied with the trespass warnings. If my wife or I showed up on the property after Blount filed trespass warnings on 12/7 with the JSO, I am quite certain we would have been arrested and/or escorted off the premises - that might constitute being thrown off the property. So we were in effect thrown off the property because of the trespass warnings. Why are we arguing about this? I'm glad you think that their actions were justified according to their "polity rules" - maybe they were. But they were most certainly not in accordance with scripture as they claimed.

Meanwhile, before any action had been taken to remove you from the church’s membership rolls you and your wife voluntarily did so by joining another church. Isn’t that the plain and simple whole truth of this matter? If not, please try to restate the matter accurately and clearly.

I have explained this numerous times. We were banned with trespass warnings...I did agree to meet with the committee if three very simple concessions were made. They did not meet even one of them. So we reached an impasse. And we weren't about to sit at home - we decided to go out and find a place to worship. We did, and we joined another church.

PART 3:While on the subject of untruthfulness, would you please give me the exact and direct quote required to establish that your statement in the following quotation is not another lie: “This was not just that a preacher saying something untrue and hurtful during a sermon about someone, like Mac did with Sheri Klouda.”

What did Pastor Mac say that was “untrue” about Sheri, and when did he say it?

Hiram - I wrote multiple blog articles about Mac's hurtful lie about Sheri Klouda, former SWBTS seminary professor and one of Mac's sheep when he was at FBC Dallas. Please go back and read those from the summer of 2008. In short, Mac said that Sheri Klouda on the witness stand admitted that her lawsuit against Paige Patterson and SWBTS violated scripture. I have the audio of his lie on the Internet. Sheri Klouda refuted his lie on this blog and told the truth.

Please feel free to reply by return email or by copying this email in its entirety on your blog with your documented response.

WD, please believe me when I say that my direct words are not intended to be harsh or mean. I don't believe you Hiram, since you called me a liar. But that's OK. Having spent years counseling people with troubles much like yours, I know that the shock of direct, even confrontational, words are sometimes necessary to help a person with troubles to come to themselves and see themselves as others see them. You place just a tad too much importance on your words Hiram. Trust me, none of your words are a "shock" to me. Except that you tell me you counsel people. That is a bit troubling. ;)

I'm glad that you think I have the problem. I don't have the problem. We are free from the abusive, negative, preaching of Mac Brunson, and trust me brother it is very liberating. I think FBC Jax has the problem at this point. They have a huge problem on their hands. And I don't need you to convince me to see myself as others see me, as I really am not all that interested in what FBC Jax members think of me. I think you might want to go to Mac Brunson and offer your assistance in this area, maybe he needs to know how others view him now and you might be able to counsel him in this area. Hence I have not pulled any punches, as many bloggers are prone to do. Punch pulling often sacrifices effectiveness for coziness in many bloggers’ comments. Sure.

Remember this, the way others see you is a vitally important part of the reality of the only world with which you have to deal. Unless you do that accurately and competently, you are destined to fail in any undertaking that involves others. Even Jesus asked whom that others were saying He was, and He asked His disciples the same question. Your former church and its leaders have clearly expressed how they perceive you, and your strong and harsh actions against their majority voted decisions.

Hiram, I don't care how you, or my former church views me at this point. I can't control that, but not everyone at the church views me as you do. The vast majority does, but that's fine with me. I don't judge myself by what others think of me. Perhaps you and some other FBC Jax members have a superiority complex, that you think others place great weight on what you folks at the downtown church think of others. I think perhaps at this point, as light is shown on the unbiblical church discipline process that was exacted against us, and endorsed and codified by A.C. Soud in the Deacons Resolution and overwhelming ratified by the congregation on Feb 25th - you all down at the FBC Jax might want to consider what the rest of Jacksonville thinks of YOU and your tacticts now that light is shown on them."

Please take a break with your family, think through these matters more fully and realistically, and ask your wife and children to read this email and give you their reactions. Please listen to them with more care and respect than you give to the opinions and advice of the blogpack. No I won't share your email with my family. Sorry, your opinion of me carries no significance whatsoever that I would want to share it with them.

Since you are wholeheartedly committed to having all your and Wade’s questions answered fully, I am awaiting with confidence your straightforward, true and documented reply. Did the best I could Hiram. If you have any other questions for me, feel free to post here. Have a good night.

Mr.Hiram you stated to Dr.Dog...."Your former church and its leaders have clearly expressed how they perceive you,and your strong and harsh actions against their majority voted decisions."....Mr Hiram what makes you think that anyone outside of FBC Jax cares what you think?...Mr Hiram you stated...."Who,other than Satan,would so blind your mind and eyes that you fail to recognize the utter deceitfulness imbedded in your own words?....I assure you that Dr.Dog is not the one deceived;but I submit to you that you sir are the one who is clueless!!....Mr.Hiram you stated.... "Having spent years counseling people with troubles much like yours,I know that the shock of direct,even confrontational,words are sometimes necessary to help a person with troubles to come to themselves and see themselves as others see them."....Hiram I'm no psychiatrist but let me now play one..."You" sir should not be counseling anyone or anything for that matter "OK"!!..Sir instead of trying to psychoanalyze Dr.Dog;"You" sir should fall to your knee's and ask God too open your spiritual eyes and allow your "Sir" to see the truth!!!

Hmmmm, someone tell me, is Harry Shorstein a member there??? Harry has a history of..., how shall will we say this, "helping", on cases involving people he new.

Not saying this is the case, but he was out the door as the State's Attorney, his hand pick replacement was losing in the race and he wrote a bad performance review the eventual winner knowing she planned to run for the office.

Hiram Smith,From reading your email to the Watchdog, it sounds like you are sincere and well-meaning. But you also come across as haughty and condescending, and perhaps overly concerned with other people's opinions. If I thought my counsel to be of value, I would counsel you to humble yourself before God and repent of your your hostility toward the Watchdog, your sin of calling him a liar just because he does not share your opinion of events, and your support of the abusive and ungodly actions of FBXJax leadership. I'm not trying to be mean (and God knows I am not one whose example others should follow!), but sometimes confrontational language such as I have used can help folks to see themselves as others see them (since you seem to care what others think).

I think you raised some valid questions but I also think you went a little overboard with the way you phrased them. As a member of the Monday Morning QB club I offer my too-late critique where I think you crossed the line from reporting the facts to making them up. The items in bold below are your opinions not facts (in my opinion, of course):

"September 2008: Mac delivers sermons in advance of the Chest of Joash Sunday which was 9/28/08. During September I was very critical of some of his tactics used in his sermons to compel people to give. I was critical especially of Mac's attempt to raise $1,000,000 for necessary repairs of our facilities, including roof repair and chiller replacements. I was critical of how Mac crossed the line from challenging his church to outright criticism and abuse for not meeting his expectations (here, here, and here). I called out Mac for his phony declaration that the churches in Rome were "satellite churches" in a weak attempt to sell us on his satellite concept. I was particularly critical of the arrogant and abusive manner in which Mac demanded we give $1 million in two weeks else we would go into debt. I was critical of the need to raise $1 million when other non-budget expenditures were made earlier in the year that could have been used to repair our facilities. I encouraged people to NOT give money to the special offering, because they have already given the money in the budget and that facility maintenance and repairs are not something for which a special offering should be held. No lies or slander - just hard hitting analysis of Mac's own words with audio and video clips."

No, not "hard hitting analysis" just hard hitting opinion. Maybe if the opinion hadn't been so hard hitting the church leadership wouldn't have went nuclear on you and your family.

At any rate, I too think there's plenty of blame to go around. The church went overboard in their reaction but I can kinda understand that, not to excuse it but I can see how their actions were in part driven by your hard hitting opinion.

Hopefully your new church home will minister to you as a real church should. Hopefully FBCJax will wake up and curb some very real abuses taking place.

" Hiram is also the one who recommended to the 2005 Nashville, Tennessee Southern Baptist Convention that ten percent of the SBC ELRC budget be given to Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church Ministries to support efforts 'to reestablish the rights to acknowledge God in America.'"

Hiram's letter on this link was bizarre enough but this? There are many of us who think it is an abomination we spend millions on a "lobbying" staff and office in DC. Of course, it keeps Richard Land in high cotton.

Can you imagine Paul setting up a lobbying staff in Rome?

Of course, we can all see how well it worked all those years with the result of Obama as president. And we are stil looking for the republicans. Where are they? It all worked so well for 30 years, didn't it. sarcasm intended

Folks take counsel from this man? Like most of our SBC leaders, Hiram confuses politics with saving faith.

Gene - yes, but that paragraph you cite was a statement of fact in summarizing the contents of this blog during the month of September: I was very critical of Brunson in September about finances and soliciting of funds. That I criticized finances was the fact I was stating, as it perhaps is relevant in determining why events unfolded as they did in September to November.

Well, I guess you learned that if you play with fire you are going to get burned. When you blog and encourage people not to tithe, then you will get a response from the church and her leadership. They haven't stifled your freedom of speech but they sure have stifled your participation in their fellowship.

I think they did what they had to do to rid themselves of a cancer.

Now its time for you to move on and get busy in your new church and forget about FBC, Jax. I'm sure they're forgetting about you.

As a lawyer and former southern baptist, I've been watching your situation with interest. To me, the most damning evidence of misconduct is the incident report completed by Det. Hinson - the lack of detail, the failure to identify any specific accusation, the failure to identify the specific type of crime alleged or law broken, all these things stongly suggest this was just a fishing expedition. It appears Det. Hinson abused his authority and position for private gain, and I think you have an obligation to your community to bring that to light - by either a lawsuit for abuse of process/defamation, or by a formal complaint to the sheriff's office.

Have you talked to your local media about this? Surely the newspaper there would love to run this story to ground.

This isn't just about you; if Hinson broke the law to get you, he'll do it again to someone else.

Mark, that may be true! But WD has been blogging since July 07. Henson's actions did not happen till over a year and a half later. WD has only published half the story. What he posted for the previous year and a half are also very relevant to the discussion.

WD's postings constitute defamation on his part also. Just read the heading of his blog!

Yes, July 07. Why do you ask? Its here on the blog for all to see. You can read the first post and the last post and all in between.

All articles written are here on this site archived at right.

Half the story? I'm not sure what you mean. I've told the story from my perspective, analyzed events from my point of view - that's what a blog is, the views of the writer...with of course dissenting views expressed in the comments. Half the story I suppose in that its MY half, my story, my views...using the words and actions of Mac Brunson.

There is another side to the story, certainly. That is the side of FBC Jax and Mac Brunson and Deb Brunson and A.C. Soud and the rest of the trustees and deacons. Maybe we'll hear their side eventually.

WD, by only half the story I was referring to all of your "opinions" prior to your idenity being revealed. The other half is all of your "opinions" written prior to the "reveal" and not others half of things.

I guess I don't understand blogs enough about posting things as "fact" when it is really "opinion". So if someone was to start a blog about your family and saying all of the things you have said about others then that is ok? If the blogger makes defamatory statements about your family you are ok with that, even though the statements are just the bloggers "opinion"?

If that is the case, then the laws on defamation would seem worthless. If you say it really only related to "public" figures, are you not now also a public figure by virtue of posting a blog for the public to read?

WD's postings constitute defamation on his part also. Just read the heading of his blog!

March 21, 2009 11:56 AM

Such silliness that people believe. This has to be proved. And from what I have read on this blog is a far cry from defamation.

Others have asked what WD has written that are lies. So far, crickets.

Oh sure, we have heard that WD does not have ALL the facts. Kind of funny coming from folks in a church that hides their by laws from the pew sitters. Of course, they do not see the irony, do they?

WD has presented what is known and asked questions about what is not known. Defamation? Good luck.

Since when is it defamation bring out actual quotes on video from a person and disagree with them? Since when is defamation a disagreement with a very public person. If Mac does not want his words and deeds challenged, then do not be a public person.

Mark has it right, though. But I would take it a step further. Why on earth would the state attorney touch this with a 10 ft pole? that concerns me greatly. And I will bet there is some connection there.

I think this will concern the folks of Fla when this gets out in the media. People do not cotton to having their privacy invaded on such flimsy grounds.

The people of Fla have a right to know what these public officials did in this case. Mark is right that it could happen to others who dare to disagree or question a well known public personality. And mega church pastors are nothing but well known personalities. They like it that way. Except when they are scruitinized. They are not used to it. They thought they could swat WD away like a gnat. the powerful are often blind.

"There is another side to the story, certainly. That is the side of FBC Jax and Mac Brunson and Deb Brunson and A.C. Soud and the rest of the trustees and deacons. Maybe we'll hear their side eventually."

Actually WD, we have heard their side of the story in the way of trespass orders and the sheriff's office abusing it's power. And the accusations against you of stalking Debbie, etc.

The fact of the matter is, they went too far and they know it. They lied to the state and put them in an embarassing position. (Elections, anyone?) Not to mention Comcast. Think how this will make them look to their customers. Trust? Yeah right.

Hinson should be quaking in his boots about now. He will most defintely be the fall guy. they always have one. He should have had more discernment that if they were willing to do this to you, what they will do to him if things do not go their way.

If I were him, I would be getting some guarantees in writing about now from the church leadership. I am sure they will slap him on teh back and tell him there is nothing to worry about. Yeah right.

I guess I don't understand blogs enough about posting things as "fact" when it is really "opinion". So if someone was to start a blog about your family and saying all of the things you have said about others then that is ok? If the blogger makes defamatory statements about your family you are ok with that, even though the statements are just the bloggers "opinion"?

If that is the case, then the laws on defamation would seem worthless. If you say it really only related to "public" figures, are you not now also a public figure by virtue of posting a blog for the public to read?

March 21, 2009 12:31 PM

If this were the case, every newspaper would have been sued out of existence 200 years ago.

In any case, WD has not made defamatory statements about Mac and his family. You just think they are.

Is it defamatory to say he hired his wife and son and pay them a nice salary? Is it defamatory to say he used tithe money to build a nice office when there was already one?

Can you specific as to what YOU think is defamatory? then go look up the definition and read about defamation legalities.

What will be interesting when WD wins his lawsuit he is preparing what he will do with the money? Give to the church or take it all for himself?

I know what he will do he is already licking his chops . . . enjoy the fruits of your labor mutt, you caught them slipping! They have done wrong, so have you but you are going to make them pay for tossing your family. Go get the media in volved . . . you and Tiphany can carry your blesssed crosses together poor mutt's.

Either way it is no concern to me. Your still a loser who did not protect his family when they needed you . . .that is a weak man regardless. You basically let them bulldog your wife and children and you let them, very weak!

Watchdog: It appears your civil rights along with some others rights to free speech have been violated. I do not believe a Federal Judge would condone such actions, particularly when no criminal activites were substantiated or even listed. A local policeman and some Assistant State Attorney may have been given information which took them out of their realm. Your attorney should be researching the rights of bloggers to enjoy privacy, much like newspaper and television reporters.A lot of us would like to know who really was behind this trespass fiasco. Keep your chin up.

If and when you ever get to a real court with this issue I imagine they will laugh you out the side door. If you think the leadership is stupid enough to do something without covering their backsides, you are truly deluded.

Its time for WD to shut this blog down and get busy serving Jesus in his new church.

If and when you ever get to a real court with this issue I imagine they will laugh you out the side door. If you think the leadership is stupid enough to do something without covering their backsides, you are truly deluded.

Its time for WD to shut this blog down and get busy serving Jesus in his new church.

For some reason, the “Powers That Be” within Sovereign Grace Ministries have decided that anything communicated anonymously is sinful.

Now, I can understand why, where relationships are concerned, anonymity can cause problems. For instance, in a true “Matthew 18″ situation (one in which “your brother [not an organization, not a system of thought, not a large group of people, but a brother] has sinned against you”) , it is biblical and productive to go to that specific individual and address that person’s offense face to face. In such a case, speaking out anonymously would not be so godly, helpful, or appropriate.

But most of the situations discussed here on Sovereign Grace Survivors do not involve mere individuals. Most of the situations discussed here involve people who have been “offended” (hurt, disillusioned, disfellowshipped) by an organization, by the organization’s teachings and rigid, graceless system of doing things.

No doubt, some of the SGM defenders are still reading this and sputtering, “But without knowing precisely who is saying these things, how will our pastors know whether or not what they say is accurate?”

How, indeed?

Well, for starters, as I’ve pointed out before, while nobody expects SGM pastors to possess super-human memory capabilities, it’s highly unlikely that most of them can’t remember what they no doubt think of as the “hard cases.” I mean, are there really that many instances of church discipline run amuck within Sovereign Grace churches? Are there really so many instances of bad counseling sessions that end up as clashes of will between pastors and their counselees, where the counselee/member is ultimately excommunicated?

I’m pretty sure that most SGM pastors can remember, with ease, precisely how they behaved in the stickier situations they’ve encountered over the years.

And if they can’t remember?

Well, Sovereign Grace Ministries is an organization that most definitely believes in taking notes and keeping records. Pastors typically maintain extensive files on their church members, with all sorts of detailed information about the members’ various struggles, issues, and sins. Especially in cases where members are in conflict with their pastors, copious notes are kept. There are veritable filing cabinets full of memory-joggers for the unfortunate pastors who suddenly have developed memory failure. All they’d have to do is leaf through the thicker manilla folders and refresh themselves as to precisely what went down and what they did.

So what is up with SGM’s obsession with anonymity? If they don’t need to set up personal meetings with individuals, why should they care whether or not people are posting here under their full real names?

Why is anonymity a sin? The Bible doesn’t seem to think that anonymous sources are sinful. After all, several books of the Bible have come to us from anonymous authors, either in part or in whole. Many SGM folks’ favorite book of the Bible - Proverbs - was penned by several other anonymous wise men, and not just Solomon. We aren’t even 100% sure of the human authorship of some of the books in the New Testament.

Certainly, the Bible would be Exhibit A for the obvious fact that God can use anonymous writers to speak truth and get His message across.

And even the FBI has recognized that anonymous sources can speak the truth, no matter who or what they are. Otherwise, why would they spend millions of your tax dollars establishing anonymous tip lines to gather information that they then use to nab criminals.

Why can’t SGM get this? Why can’t they just EXAMINE THEMSELVES, examine their organization, and ask themselves if they’ve ever done the things that have been discussed here? Are they guilty of these things?

And if they ARE guilty of these things, why can’t they admit it, and then change what needs to be changed?

Why would they need to know my name, or your name, or Commenter XYZ’s name, in order to change what needs to be changed?

See, I think that SGM leadership’s obsession with knowing names is much more about CONTROL. Their critics have said, again and again, that SGM’s system of thought and leadership structure is all about control in the first place. And you know, SGM’s apparent hang-up with anonymity would simply serve to further prove this point.

After all, anonymity prevents them from maintaining control, and if their critics are correct, these guys cannot give up control.

With anonymity, they can’t pinpoint precisely which person they can pick apart or condemn so as to avoid dealing with the truth of the criticisms the anonymous person is leveling at them. They can’t go after an anonymous commenter’s character, or head on over to the anonymous person’s current pastor to threaten retribution.

All they can do is listen to what the person has to say.

Why - WHY - is that a sin to these guys? Why is that so difficult for them?

I heard that one of reasons FBC was able to get a subpoena to Google/Comcast is because you showed a picture of the Brunson's house in their gated Deerwood community when you were describing the $1,000,000+ home that Mac lives in. The picture of the house 'proved' that you could enter the gated community and be the one who could stalk Mrs. Brunson while she ran and also you could be the one who stole their mail.

If and when you ever get to a real court with this issue I imagine they will laugh you out the side door. If you think the leadership is stupid enough to do something without covering their backsides, you are truly deluded.

Its time for WD to shut this blog down and get busy serving Jesus in his new church.

March 21, 2009 9:32 PM

Is that how you serve Jesus? By supporting those in church leadership who cover their backsides. You sound as if you admire that.

I am starting to wonder if anyone at FBCJax has ever heard the complete Gospel. Ever heard a sermon on Hebrews 10: 26-31?

I heard that one of reasons FBC was able to get a subpoena to Google/Comcast is because you showed a picture of the Brunson's house in their gated Deerwood community when you were describing the $1,000,000+ home that Mac lives in. The picture of the house 'proved' that you could enter the gated community and be the one who could stalk Mrs. Brunson while she ran and also you could be the one who stole their mail.

March 21, 2009 11:24 PM

If I knew your address, I could get a picture of your home and put it on the internet. That does not prove I was on your street.

Well, that would be a good explanation, except anyone that looks at the picture on the blog would clearly see it was taken from Google maps street view. And they would clearly be able to go to Googlemaps and see the picture there exactly matched the picture on street view.

Might not even be the Brunson house shown by entering their address in google maps; google often is off by several houses when entering an address. Have to look at addresses painted on curbs/drives/elsewhere to know for sure (doing some new home shopping myself in my town and have found this to be so here).

anon - how was the dog weak? He IS standing up for his wife and kids. You will see that in the coming days. He is still uncovering all that was done,and is "building a case" to quote Mac. Then you will see just how much the WD is doing to "stand up" for his wife and family. This matter is just beginning. It is not over by any stretch of the imagination.

1. Comcast and Google have done nothing wrong. They were issued subpoenas signed by an Assistant State Attorney, and complied with those pursuant to law.

2. The Asst State Attorney did nothing wrong. He requested subpoenas for ongoing possible criminal activity and the SA, in good faith, issued the signed the subpoenas. Most likely the SA did NOT know Detective Hinson was a member of the church, NOR did he know the church was doing all it could to find out the identity of the WD. Had he known this, he may not have signed off on this fishing expedition.

3. Detective Hinson - well, I believe the "integrety unit" and the SA might have some pointed questions for him. And if he can't answer them and document his actions...perhaps the FBI might be interested. And if he is employed by the church part time, and his actions were more a personal interest...you figure it out.

4. John Blount - REVEREND John Blount. Assuming everyone above can cover their backsides, it will all boil down to John Blount's motives for asking Detective Hinson to use his position to identify the blogger. Using the color of law to involve the JSO and the SA to obtain information the church had openly been seeking for over a year...well, that all may fall squarely on John Blount. AND if John Blount made statements and made a presentation to deacons that the WD was committing any criminal acts, then John Blount, and John Blount ALONE, will end up taking the fall.

5.) There is one other person who could save John Blount in this, and that is the person who may have lied to John Blount about the WD. If Blount could produce some affidavit or sworn staement, or corroborate that someone he works for or with accused the WD and Blount was only acting on that, then Blount would only need disclose who that person was and what the charges were. That person would then be the one to suffer the criminal and or civil penalties.

6. Of course the other option would be IF the WD was actually guilty of a crime that necessitated the discovery of his, Sean Lyons and Tiffany Croft's IP addresses and identities, then no problem. The WD is in big trouble.

My guess would be #4 or #5 based on what I have been reading on this blog. Oh well. Time WILL tell.

The picture of the house hardly looks like a million dollar plus house. If it is then housing prices must be unreal in Jax. And oh yeah watchdog can you post your address for the world to see? :) I'd like to see how big of a house you live in.

Hard Ball Religion has arrived in the warehouses and will begin being distributed shortly. One of the major premises in the book is that a person should be known as a Christian by how he behaves as much as what he believes. The follower of Jesus should be known by his love for others. These past four years have been an eye opener for me in that I have met some Southern Baptists who seem to display more of a concern that others believe their doctrine than they do that others experience their love. There even seems to be some in ministry that think they are special because of their "office" and lord their sense of authority over others rather than desiring to be a servant to all. What is most surprising to me is how some Southern Baptists consider disagreement an attack on their character, and as a result, respond with vociferous personal attacks. I long for the day when Southern Baptist Christians can disagree with charity.

I am the watchdog'wife and this is my story. I have only posted on this blog just a couple of times before. My husband is not a coward or weak or a loser , like some of you have stated.He honestly saw some "RED FLAGS"with the new administration jusk like a lot of members did. Believe me I know because a lot of them shared with me, and believe me, I know alot of people at FBC since we had been members there for 2 decades. But after a while, people just decided to live with it, but my husband felt that he wanted to shine some light and open people's eyes hoping to bring some good change to FBC and other churches that were watching , but the opposite happened, they decided to punish our entire family.I agree with the truths that were being shine on the blog, but I wanted it to stop because I knew that they were going to come after my family HARD as Dr. Brunson was being exposed. Boy was I right . These past months have been a NIGHTMARE for me and my family. My kids who were highly involved in their youth programs, Sunday School, choir and ensemble,Extreme connections and Refuge had to step down overnight with great sorrow, esp. my 13 year old, GREAT SORROW, then and STILL.They wre there 3x a week with friends that they had grown up with. I had to stepped down from my area of service with great grief and sorrow. And what do I get for all my years of service(every year I have served in multiple areas , out of love first of all Christ and second, the church,a trespass warning for associating with my own husband,just merely for being his wife.This has no excuse and I believe they owe me an apology(and my daughter and sons which were greatly affected by this trespass) as for the month of December they were dropped to some of the Christmas events while we waited for them in the parking lot. I guess "my sin" was that I was submissive to my husband and supported him even though I wanted this blog down(only because I knew in my spirit and heart that they were going to hurt my family). But to be submissive and supportive is what I have been taught all my life at FBC.Praise God our family has survived these horrible months of intense trial and tribulation and we are stronger for it. We have risen from the sinking waters thanks to the prayers of the faithful ones.We have joined a wonderful Bible believing , warm fellowship with a Godly pastor and preacher who preaches verse by verse from the Bible in a loving way. We are so blessed to be away from all the angry yelling and accusations of our former pastor that we endured. God is still with us! We needed a pastor so much and God gave us one.

So , don't blame my husband, on the contrary, I think that he is very courageous and bold to have stood up to the BIG BOYS, singledhanded.I know that I would have been like the rest and just live with it, but he was brave enough to stand up for those of us that were afraid to do so. Over these trying months, the Lord gave me some verses , and I will share just a few with you, Psalms 27,86 and 121.Phillipians 4 :6-8, which has given me much peace during my many, many sleepless nights.My prayer has been for God's will ,truth to be revealed , which will make us free John 8:32. And people that know us know of our character and our children's character and that we all love the Lord and have served Him for years.I wish some men that know my husband would have the courage to stand up and speak in his defense but apparently there is no one among the men deacons.Some of you know what kind of man my husband is, and that he would never do the things John Blount has said he did.He has high moral and values, which is shown in ours and our kid's lives.One of the things that have hurt me the most is the lies that were told about my husband during the deacon's meeting, which I fear they fabricated these lies just to get to his records,and when we found out that John Blount actually went to the Sherrifs office and filed against me a formal trspass warning this time not for assiating with a member's church misconduct, but actually for my own church misconduct as if I was a criminal.. Please,John Blount, Kevin King, What has been my church misconduct? I would love a phone call from either of these two men that came to my house that wouldn't let me go to church with my kids, that wouldn't let me sit in church to watch my daughter sing. I have been so disappointed in men that I had looked up to for so many years at FBC. I know these men, their wifes and their kids. We sat in the pew behind one of these men family for years.Please , maybe one of the 6 men who signed the letter can call me.I know and was friend s with some of their wives.John Blount , when I asked for permission to accompany my daughter during the Christmas service , but my request was denied, this time ,please tell me why you formally file a trespass warning on me with the sheriffs office. I often wonder what your sweet wife thinks of all of this.I sometimes wish that my sweet friend Shirley Lindsey were here because I know that she would have never tolerated this mistreatment of one of her friends. She would have never stood by and a let a mother sit in her car while her daughter sang at church because the mother was not permitted to accompany her daughter.And if I knew her well, she would have marched right into John Blount's office with me demanding an explanation about issuing trespass warnings and filing them with the sherrifs office, another lie. But it would have grieved her so much that is better that she never knew about all of this.By the way, are these trespass warning in effect forever. I would have love to go to the Passion Play, as I loved it last year. But , I guess I am the only person , besides my husband, that is not welcome to go in the whole city of jacksonville.

Things are not were they need to be yet, but I know God is in control. Thanks for all the prayers and Let's keep on praying. God Bless

This is a repeat by MAC from what happened at FBC-DALLAS. He tried to raise millions for a new building and never got above 32% at DALLAS. He tried to jettison Criswell College. He tried to court the "richeys". Apparently only seeking out those who could help financially. When will he learn and have a real heart for GOD. Shame on MAC!!!

How can we be sure that post is from the WD's wife? She didn't sign her name.

I'm sorry but the "trials and tribulations" you endured were brought on by yourselves and you have noone to blame but yourselves. Your spiritual husband (as you call him) could have gone in and met with Mac at any time.

With all of the spelling and grammatical errors in this post I have serious doubts that it is the WD's wife. He would proofread what she wrote before he printed it.

The defenders of Mac and accusers of the Watchdog have to grasp at any straw to defend the indefensible. Even doubt the posting of a woman telling her story about how the church has harmed her.

John Blount is a bully, in my opinion. He filed an official trespass warning issued against my wife for "church misconduct" when she committed none. I'm sure John is proud of that official action that he took on behalf of the members of FBC Jax as the "church administrator".

WD, although I do not agree with your tactics on handling what you perceive as wrongdoings by Mac Brunson, I do agree that EVERYONE should lay off of your wife and children. PERIOD AND END OF SUBJECT!!

I can empathize with you on your concerns, but when you do it anonymously by using the worlds' tactics by blogging for over a year and a half without personally and directly going to the Deacons that you know or directly to Mac Brunson to discuss it, that is where I draw the line.

Everyone keeps bringing up Matthew 18, but it was you who made the first comments and should have gone to Brunson or at least to the deacons that you know.

I do not know what the justification on serving the trespass warrant on both of you, but they did. I sincerely hope that this was merely an over site on the part of FBC.

Again, I sincerely do not think the majority at FBC wishes you and your family no harm. The problem with all of the anonymous bloggers is that it is almost impossible to know if they are legitimate members of FBC or merely alien troublemakers that are just trying to stir up trouble. Frankly, I believe that these ill speaking bloggers are not active members of FBC or are from other parts of the country.

Never the less, their negative comments about you, your family, FBC, the FBC staff, or Mac Brunson, personally, or even his family are way out of line and are not the comments of Christ followers.

Again, I and all of the folks that I know at FBC do not wish you or your family any harm. We do wish you the very best at your new fellowship.

Mrs Dr.Dog thanks for your blog and your stand with your husband...I have stood against an abusive Pastor and their yes men and I know the courage it takes to stand against the powerful,and the pain one has to endure...But just as you stated not many people are willing to take a stand against wrong and many so called friends and fellow believers will turn their backs and abandon you...Even Jesus stated that near His 2nd return that people professing Christianity will turn on the faithful[Matt.24:10]...Believe me it may not happen now but one day you and Dr.Dog will be fully vindicated....Mrs Dr.Dog what you and Dr.Dog have done is shown your children that you must stand for what is right and that some times it is accompanied by suffering and hurt(cf.Martin Luther,and this alone is an invaluable character lesson to them...Mrs.Dog there are certainly problems with FBCJ and Mac Brunson,I saw this well before I ever knew about this blog...God has delivered you and moved you to a place where you can worship in spirit and truth enjoy it and thank Him!!!...Now God will deal with FBC Jax!!!

My point exactly Anon - the actions toward my wife were in response to my calling out the nepotism of the Brunsons and other criticisms of their actions. Tit-for-tat, just what Brunson himself yesterday said should not be done by Christians.

I analyzed events at our church that concerned our congegation; yes, they at times involved Trey and Debbie Brunson, but they have not been punished for associating with their dad; they have been rewarded for associating with Mac. This blog has commented about the wrong of nepotism, the promotions plans of the conferences under Trey's and Maurilio's leadership, and the land gift - these involved Mac and Debbie. Mac has his family work at the church are paid salaries with the money given by the people of God, and they are not above having their actions criticized, even on a blog.

My wife, on the other hand, just served at the church, was never paid for anything, never took a salary to perform her ministry, just gave of her time and talent for years and years and was punished for associating with her husband.

Watchdog's wife: Do not fret, do not worry about your situation and the fact that you are submissive to your husband. That is BIBILICAL. The LORD, and then your husband is the authority over you and no one else. You will and have been vindicated already. No REAL MAN would have injured a woman just because she is married to "perceived enemy". Bad judgement, and certainly ungentleman like behavior on their part. Not to mention unscriptual. Behavior they would never have tolerated happening to THEIR wives or famalies. I do not recall murderers' or thieves'wives going to prison because of what their husbands did. Wrong, totally wrong and against the bible. Don't concern yourself with an apology as it won't happen this side of heaven. Those in authority would never stoop so low as to apologize for their behavior. It's not in them. They believe they are doing God's work. Warped as that may be! Such a sham. Many now know how horribly you and your family were treated and although you have paid dearly for it, remember how they treated Jesus and He was God in the flesh doing good and those in authority just couldn't handle who He was, as they thought He was a threat and they would lose their positions. Anger and jealously is the rule today rather than the exception. No comparison between man and Jesus, but unfariness in treatment does raise it's ugly head. Keep your heads up high and know that a lot of us are praying for you and that you will be a blessing to those in your new church. God bless you lady.

Anon 9:25am: How judgemental! I know Mrs. WD and her words are HER words, no need to proofread. She spoke from her heart and those who know her recognize that SHE wrote this. By the way, English is her second language.

Mrs. WD and her children are the real victims of this out-of-control, run amok pastor and his "boys". I know her personally and how much the trespass and "misconduct" accusation hurt her. She is a loving, caring, faithful Christian woman who ministered to many at FBC over the years. Her church is her life! As she said, why didn't any of the deacons, their wives, or other men of the church step forward in her defense and minister to HER? They owe her an explanation. What was HER "misconduct"? Where are they? Who are they afraid of?

I have been struck by the subtle distain Mac Brunson has for women as evidenced by his slander of Ms. Klouda, his regular comments about his wife's extravagant shopping habits (degrading attempts at humor at her expense), his "beauty shop gossipers" comment, his disparaging remarks about Mrs. Criswell and Mrs. Truett in Dallas, and now allowing the mistreatment of this beautiful Christian woman.

Yesterday I listened as Mac preached about retaliation, mean dispositions, antagonism, devouring one another, not striking back, not responding to insults, caring for one another, being tender hearted to one another, being mindful of our witness. Did you hear that John Blount? How does this square with the treatment of Mrs. WD? Mac preaches one way, behaves another. Sound familiar?

Mrs. WD is a trooper. I admire her greatly. She is standing for what she believes in, defending her husband and family. I applaud her for telling her story. She is owed at the very least an apology from the pastor, John Blount, Mr. Soud, and the others. Stay strong, Mrs. WD.

There are other people who don't feel welcome at FBC Jax, Mrs. Watchdog. I'm one of them. I'm quite sure there are others, as well, so don't feel alone.

And as for the fact that there doesn't seem to be a lot of respect for invasion of privacy at FBC Jax, is anyone else concerned that maybe if you went to counseling at their counseling center, you might be at risk of your privacy being violated there too....IF they didn't like what you had to say? I mean can't this lack of concern for privacy carry over into more than one area of FBC Jax? I know I am very concerned, but then again, I always was. Its what initially got me in difficulty at FBC Jax. But seriously, IF you don't say the right thing, how many areas could you be in trouble in? Anybody get what I'm saying? I mean if the church goes so far as to subpeona records of Tiffany Croft, the classic "revictimize the victim" scenario that Baptists are so good at, what else would they do? I mean, did they subpeona her records to get the IP addresses of all the people posting on her board? Again..."revictimizing the victims?" What in the world did that have to do with FBC Jax? Or did it have something to do with Paige Patterson? What in the world is going on? I can't even make sense of it. That is an unacceptable offense right there.

Again, I'm quite sure there are different people who aren't welcome at FBC Jax. I'm just not quite sure they know why anymore than I do. I'm sure Tiffany Croft is quite puzzled at this point as to what she did wrong. Not meaning to speak for anyone.

Why is it wrong for a pastor to accept a land gift from a member? Would it be wrong for Watchdog to accept a gift from another member in the church? What about missionaries who raise support? What about the Baptist Collegiate Ministers on our University Campuses that often times get houses, cars, vacations given to them? Is this wrong? What are you suppossed to do? Tell them no? This is an honest sincere question from a young one who is called into the ministry.

I sure hope all you people who regularly castigate Mac and then entire staff at FBC aren't members there. If you are, why don't you leave if they are so corrupt. You shouldn't spent one minute under their spiritual leadership and guidance if they are as ungodly as you seem to think.

Now that WD's wife has started posting I guess we'll have to listen to how spiritual and pure she is and she is sufferingly only because her husband took a stand. What a joke. What happened to them was a result of their own actions.

The ones I do feel sorry for are their children. They didn't ask their Dad to do what he did and they sure weren't forced to join FBC, Jax. Seems like it all comes down to the husband's leadership doesn't it?

A lot of nerve complaining about having to put up with a woman posting here once defending her husband family when we've been bombarded by Brunson from the pulpit each and every week just how godly and pure Mrs. Brunson is, how close to Jesus she walks, how she has never ever not once not one single time been disrespectful to Mac.

Anon 12:20pm said. "If you hate listening to Mac then leave. Your whining is getting old. I'm sure there are plenty of good churches in Jacksonville. Go find one and get on with your life." You are CORRECT about that any other church is better than FBCJ.

How can we be sure that post is from the WD's wife? She didn't sign her name.

I'm sorry but the "trials and tribulations" you endured were brought on by yourselves and you havenoone to blame but yourselves. Your spiritual husband (as you call him) could have gone in and met with Mac at any time.

With all of the spelling and grammatical errors in this post I have serious doubts that it is the WD's wife. He would proofread what she wrote before he printed it.

March 23, 2009 9:25 AM

My guess is you must be the new English teacher that was hired. Take a look at what you did (in bold) before you accuse others. Ok, maybe you’re not the new English teacher.

Let me ask one question of you.

I know why the watchdog and some others posts anon, but what do you have to fear that makes you post anon?

You seem to support the actions of this church. You shouldn't be afraid since you must have FBC's approval to write such stuff. Or then again, maybe FBC doesn't agree with you and would be ashamed to find out who you are and would have to get rid of you too so that you aren't an embarrassment to them for posting such ugly words.

If you support First Brunson Church then you should have nothing to fear unless you are in a position like me.

I have seen some use their real names, but most of you that do not agree with the watchdog post anon.I challenge any FBC member or anyone who supports MAC to stop posting anon and write their name in or are all of you afraid that someone might subpoena you???

Now you're all thinking why is this person asking us to put our names here when they won't.

I will tell you, because I have family there who has asked me not to put my name here, otherwise I would, but I won’t at this time because I respect and love them. They know I want the same answers as the watchdog. If FBC wants to know who I am they can get Mr. Blount to ask Officer Hinson from Jacksonville’s Sherriff’s Office to find out for them just like they did with the watchdog and the other 2 who got a subpoena. You can find the subpoena’s posted elsewhere in this blog.

This will just prove to everyone that those who question anyone who is in authority like Obama or MAC, will be brought down and made to shut down and to shut up or you will be severely disciplined.

Oops, Did I just say MAC and Obama have the same tactics? God forbid that the church would act like the Chinese government. Sorry, I meant the American government. Oops again. Did I just compare the Chinese government with the American government?

We have become a world of do as I say not as I do and don't question me no matter how wrong I am. Even todays church leaders have fallen to this and with no one to hold them accountable, this is what kind of religion we get because we refuse to believe or we fear them to stand up to them.

I support holding our leaders accountable for what they say and do even the religious leaders. They are not God and therefore will make mistakes.

Anon 12:54pm said...."If FBC wants to know who I am they can get Mr. Blount to ask Officer Hinson from Jacksonville’s Sherriff’s Office to find out for them just like they did with the watchdog and the other 2 who got a subpoena."........"Amen" My Brother/Sister "Amen"!!!

do you understand how harsh it all sounds when you say...."go away, if you disagree, just go away, if you question, just go away, if you can't participate in a church that subpeonas people's IP's in some cases for NO REASON, and invades their privacy, just go away...but I ask you, WHO IS IN THE WRONG? Thats probably the primary thing I notice about the people who disagree with people thinking these tactics are wrong...they are all so, uh, harsh. I am starting to notice it all the way through the entire congregation of FBC Jax. Its just all so harsh. I don't know, I guess God will judge it all in the end.

I know from good authority that Mac told the students at Criswell College that he reads the blog and knows what is being said. He told the students that this was just an attack of Satan on God's messenger and that they should expect to have to endure this type of thing. Sorry Mac, since you have now admitted that you (and undoubtedly your kids) read this, then get a load of this. Some of those poor little kids will buy it because they don't know you, but we all know that was just more of your B.S. If I knew all this was being said about me, I would resign immediately. But you're too greedy and you're gonna ride that train as long as they'll let you.

Notice how some of us never directly attack the pastor, and don't believe in directly attacking a pastor either. But I am telling you, this Tiffany Croft thing, for some reason, has pushed me over the edge of credulity (is that how you spell it?)in other words, I am INCREDULOUS, and I really can't believe this whole thing. And I told the Watchdog many times he should shut this thing down....BUT...you know what? If he HAD, nobody ever would have known that this church would go to these lengths to shut down people who disagree with them. (although, I honestly had started to suspect that last year). But I NEVER would have believed that they would start subpeonaing records of people blogging. BLOGGING. DISAGREEING. WHEN DID THAT BECOME A CRIMINAL ACT??????Especially records of people who had nothing to do with this blog, i.e. Tiffany Croft who was a victim of a Baptist Pastor. Please, does ANYBODY have an explanation? I have to live with people who still attend this church and....well, you figure it out. Some of us are pressured to go there at times, lets put it that way, and we CAN'T, and it makes it a little tense maybe, thats what I would call it I guess. I mean up till this last deal, I might have been able to still go to a choir program or something...but NOW...I would feel like I was betraying my own conscience right now. And I don't get any answers either.

Perhaps the Voice of the Martyrs would do a feature story on how you have been treated.

Who in Jax is going to take your legal case on? If FBC can put its members into elected positions, do you sincerely believe you can win anything through the courts? Ever notice how all serious candidates for office come to FBC before an election. Yeah, they would help you.

Oh, try the Federal courts next. I am certain the US Attorney will launch a federal task force to look into the alleged crimes at FBC.

Important distinction: John Blount or FBC Jax have not issued subpoenas for anything. FBC Jax does not have any power to subpoena. Only law enforcement or courts can do this - FBC Jax contacted law enforcement to allege criminal activity associated with the Internet, presumably the Watchdog website, and Detective Hinson opened a criminal investigation. We don't know why John Blount did this, we don't know what the crimes were that were alleged by John Blount. The detective was very vague in his report so we can't tell from the reports either what was alleged or what he found. But we do know: Detective Hinson requested subpoenas from Google for three parties, and he got the information he requested from Google. Detective Hinson personally confirmed that he then did issue a subpoena to Comcast to reveal my identity and if I wanted a copy of that subpoena I would have to obtain it from Comcast. Detective Hinson has made it clear that he immediately destroys all documents relating to a closed investigation and if he has any open/ongoing investigations, which he very well may, he would not be answering any questions about those.

So we mustn't say "the church is subpoena'ing records", since they don't. The alleged a crime. Detective Hinson was investigating a potential crime and must have thought there was reason enough to issue subpoenas to Google and Comcast. Detective Hinson must have thought that whatever crime Blount was alleging he needed personal Internet records to determine if crimes wre committed and who committed them.

To me it is very troubling that the detective working this case, and the detective who requested the subpoenas from the SA is a member of the church. I am not alleging that anything illegal has been done in obtaining the subpoenas - I don't know if there was or not...but these facts are troubling and I think require further examination and explanation.

But we know one thing: Mac and FBC Jax are not going to give any answers to their role, and I don't think JSO will be giving any answers since the detective has destroyed records related to this case after he determined there was no criminal activity in that particular case. So if any answers are to be obtained related to WHY the subpoenas were requested, and WHY my name was given to the church by the JSO (I'm assuming it was) it will have to be other parties that ask the questions as to what happened and why it happened.

I am appalled at the comments coming from the members of FBCJax. As a fellow SBC Christian, I would hope that these comments are the exception and not the rule. But, since others haven't taken a stand for the wife and children, especially, and the husband, too, from the deacons, I'm beginning to doubt it.

One of the things that Christ hated/hates most was/is hypocrisy. Brunson preaches the word about how Christians should behave and turns a blind eye to the actions of his own staff. But if he preaches against what is happening in his own church, he makes it appear that he is innocent in the matter. Who would believe that? Some obviously think Brother Blount is above reproach. The problem is ego and pride, from the preacher and the staff. They like to think they are above others and cannot be criticized for their actions.

The reason WD's wife was banned was to hurt WD badly enough to make him stop pointing out the hypocrisy, etc. of the church and staff. Blount knew that WD could take it himself, but hurting his family would do the job. What a man of God??? And this blogging is the worst sin in the church? There is no adultery, theft, lying, fornication, etc., for the church to focus on? Just their egos. They don't seem interested in what grieves the Holy Spirit, just what grieves them.

Stand strong WD and family--God knows who is wrong here and hopefully more and more fellow Christians are waking up to the truth, just as Americans are beginning to recognize what is happening to our country.

The reason I have wanted WD to continue blogging is that FBCJax is not an anomaly, this arrogant behavior is more common that some believe. We need more watchmen on the wall before God Himself takes care of the problem. I believe it would be better for us to clean our own houses and not wait for the Lord to do it for us!

Anon 3:48pm..If Mac won't talk to Dr.Dog!!..If Mac won't talk to Wade Burleson...What makes you think he will talk to me???..As far as I know Mac already knows who I am(cf.Tiffany)...Secondly I work a secular job for a living I take no money from my ministry!!!...And since you are so full of advice maybe you can anwser my oft repeated question....Does a Pastor have the Biblical right to live a lavish,extravagant lifstyle off of the offering of the people???...A simple yes or no will suffice...Thank You!!!

Nothing sinister in destroying records, didn't mean to imply that. I'm told that its routine for officers to destroy investigation notes and records when they close a case and no criminal activity is discovered.

As to subpoenas, I also understand that not all subpoenas have to go before a judge, that the SA can sign off on them in the course of criminal investigations.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my understanding.

Again, not alleging anything wrong...but even if the subpoenas were justified, I'm curious as to why my name was given to the church as the owner of the WD blog. I don't think the church had a right to be told my name by law enforcement who obtained my Internet records in an investigation that did not end up in charges begin filed.

Hey Mrs. WD - good to hear from you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here and for supporting your husband. God has used him when every other man in the church who sensed a problem, did NOTHING. Your husband is standing in the gap. He has taken the heat and criticism from anonymous cowards. (Their words for people who don't sign their comments) He had the trustees, discipline committee, deacon body, A.C. Soud's toothless resolution, church by-law changes, and sermon after sermon from mac brunson and even one from Vines, out to "shut em down." But he stood. Now, he has the legal system standing with him. They don't care about the blog or its contents. They are concerned about the abuse of power by the church to identify the man despite Federal privacy laws. They care about detectives acting under the color of law to obtain, and then give out, information to the church for which the detective is a long time member and even works as an off duty security officer. They are concerned about law enforcement using their position and privileges to obtain information for personal use.

So, whether you like the WD or like Mac, or don't really care about FBC Jax, the issues are now strictly about what lengths did the church, JSO, SA and John Blount go to in order to identify the blogger and then go after him and his family.

anon - I also increased my giving to the church after I learned John Blount had trespass warnings issued. And then I gave even more when I found out that Detective Hinson obtained subpoenas to identify the WD and then gave that information to the church.

Man, if they keep confronting anyone who asks questions this aggressively, they should raise the million dollars...in two weeks.

Dawg, you said..."I'm curious as to why my name was given to the church as the owner of the WD blog. I don't think the church had a right to be told my name by law enforcement who obtained my Internet records in an investigation that did not end up in charges begin filed."

Well...it got the records anyways.I doubt anyone in their right mind will admit to how the church got them.What next, Man of La Mancha?

Watchdog - has anyone from the church, (staff member, deacon, trustee, Soud, Blount, etc) contacted you to this day about your questions, or about their handling of this? What about your wife, anyone contacted her to talk about any of this?

If not, why not? Are they being "led" by detectives and lawyers or by the Holy Spirit?

I honestly believe that WD is just prolonging everything but giving out little tidbits here and there. Just like he did when he didn't own up to being the one that was served the trespass papers. This legal garbage being spewed by everyone who posts about it means absolutely nothing. The leadership of FBC knew exactly what they were doing and are well protected legally or they wouldn't have done it.

I think the end of the WD's blog is nearer than we think. Hopefully he can start writing about his new church and pastor and their committees and move on to greener pastures.

Anon 4:33pm...Please tell me that you are not the normal FBC Jax member???...There are some Pastor's who pastor for the love of Christ and the truth of Scripture and are not greedy for filthy lucre!!!..And you or no one else has answered my question....Is it Biblically correct for the Pastor to live an extravagant lifestyle from the offering of the people..."YES" or "NO"...Here's a clue for you it's in the Bible[Acts 5:32-35;2Cor.11:7-9;1Thes.2:4-12]!!!

Something I have noticed reading your blog is that the Mac supporters for the most part, don't even try to defend Mac's actions, teaching and behaviors. They simply attack you.

Their defense is pretty shallow with:they are too smart not to cover their backsides. Just leave the church, etc.

What I would like to see are some comments defending Mac's teaching and behavior with this scenerio. What biblical defense they would use for his actions and his teachings?

From what I am reading here, the biblical illiteracy is pretty bad even on the basics that all Born Again believers should know so they will not be fooled by charlatans.

This illiteracy is typical in a mega church and even more typical with those using Lifeway materials.

Most baptists know some bible verses out of context. That is why pastors can teach about 'tithing' (Old Covenant) instead of offerings (To help those in need in the Body and to the Great Commission) and get by with it. Folks just do not know better. They probably do not know that Paul made tents so as not to be a burden on the churches.

Welcome Mrs. Watchdog. Thank you for sharing your situation here. I feel so badly for you, and for you husband, that a church full of "Spirit-led men of God" treated you in the shameful way they have. And your question about one of the deacons calling you, or their wives, that's a very good question. To all the deacons that were involved in this shameful action, recall James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin". Isn't there one deacon on that whole board with a backbone, with a conscience seared by the Holy Spirit, who will stand up and defend an innocent Christian brother? Your church members are watching you and you will give an account to God. Watchdog did nothing but ask some questions about troubling things he saw. That does not warrant treating him like a criminal. In fact, the more he is attacked the more it looks like his blog has hit the nail on the head. John 11:48 tells how the Pharisees were trying desperately to stop Jesus - not because He was wrong, but because He was right and they didn't want to lose their privileged position. Hmm, sounds like the leaders of FBCJax. It's obvious there are many lawyers in your church, as the treatment of WD was the standard defense attorney tactic: when you have no defense against the charges, then attack the accuser and get the focus off yourself. Classic. Whether you deacons really believed Watchdog was wrong, that does not excuse the completely un-Christian way you treated his wife. How do you show up at church each week, knowing what you helped do to her? How do you witness to people after having treated a fellow Christian in such an un-Christian manner? As that old Sunday School song went "dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone". Is there not one Daniel in that whole church? Watchdog, thank you for being a Daniel even though it has cost you and your family dearly. God has seen what you have gone through and you will receive your reward. God bless you, your wife and your family. I have added you all to my prayers.

Welcome Mrs. Watchdog. Thank you for sharing your situation here. I feel so badly for you, and for you husband, that a church full of "Spirit-led men of God" treated you in the shameful way they have. And your question about one of the deacons calling you, or their wives, that's a very good question. To all the deacons that were involved in this shameful action, recall James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin". Isn't there one deacon on that whole board with a backbone, with a conscience seared by the Holy Spirit, who will stand up and defend an innocent Christian brother? Your church members are watching you and you will give an account to God. Watchdog did nothing but ask some questions about troubling things he saw. That does not warrant treating him like a criminal. In fact, the more he is attacked the more it looks like his blog has hit the nail on the head. John 11:48 tells how the Pharisees were trying desperately to stop Jesus - not because He was wrong, but because He was right and they didn't want to lose their privileged position. Hmm, sounds like the leaders of FBCJax. It's obvious there are many lawyers in your church, as the treatment of WD was the standard defense attorney tactic: when you have no defense against the charges, then attack the accuser and get the focus off yourself. Classic. Whether you deacons really believed Watchdog was wrong, that does not excuse the completely un-Christian way you treated his wife. How do you show up at church each week, knowing what you helped do to her? How do you witness to people after having treated a fellow Christian in such an un-Christian manner? As that old Sunday School song went "dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone". Is there not one Daniel in that whole church? Watchdog, thank you for being a Daniel even though it has cost you and your family dearly. God has seen what you have gone through and you will receive your reward. God bless you, your wife and your family. I have added you all to my prayers.

I honestly believe that WD is just prolonging everything but giving out little tidbits here and there. Just like he did when he didn't own up to being the one that was served the trespass papers. This legal garbage being spewed by everyone who posts about it means absolutely nothing. The leadership of FBC knew exactly what they were doing and are well protected legally or they wouldn't have done it.

I think the end of the WD's blog is nearer than we think. Hopefully he can start writing about his new church and pastor and their committees and move on to greener pastures.

March 23, 2009 5:20 PM

When he is done there will be more coming. One blog will die, but there will always be others to hold MAC and every deacon at FBC accountable just like you.

I would be ashamed to be called an "executive pastor." Was David a pastor, or an "executive pastor." What the H _ _ _ is an "executive pastor." The same as an Executive shepherd?

It's all about salaries and prestige and position. Right. I am the "executive pastor of administration." What the ??? And by the way that is "Reverend Executive Pastor of Administration." Get Real. We have a pastor and we have a music minister and then we have wannabe ministers with cushy secretarial positions with fancy titles. Clowns, bullies, and punks. Yep. You know who I am talking about, don't you "reverend?"

Signed,

Most high reverend executive pastor of blogging. (minister of alternative forms of communication.)

All of the "anonymous" comments are funny - I had to join on the bandwagon. Boy, there are some scared people -you'd think we were living in communist China.You are all attacking the WD for being anon. yet the majority of the posts whether positive or negative are anon....hmmmm

I have been at FBCJax for over 20 years. It has been my and my family's 2nd home. I love FBCJax. I also know the Watchdog and his family. They are a wonderful family! I dearly love Watchdog's wife. She and her entire family are great people! I was drawn to them a long time ago. I saw how much they loved God, their family members and their church. In all the years I have known them, I have never heard them say an unkind word about anyone! I never even paid attention to this blog until I heard who had started it. Because of the integrity of this family, I continued reading. I trust this family. I believe what they say. I am sooo heartbroken at the actions of the leaders in my church. This is NOT the actions that would have been taken by former pastors and leadership. It is so hard to go against the flow at FBC. I have lifelong friends and family members at this church. I do not talk about this blog with them. I made that mistake a couple of times and was "shamed" for reading it. Okay, so I won't make that mistake again. I believe that's why the actions of the leadership are continuing in this negative manner. You are made to feel ashamed it you read it. You also risk estrangement from those who have been your closest friends, those who have walked through every season of life with you. This is a sad day. I, like so many others, want to love, respect, trust, and honor my pastor. I want to sit under his preaching and grow in the Lord. Dr. Lindsay's preaching absolutely changed my life. I drank in his words, knowing that God was speaking directly through him to me. I'm not trying to glorify Dr. Lindsay, but I knew I could trust him. FBCJax will always hold a special place in my heart. If the leadership of FBCJax is reading this blog, I beg you to resolve this situation in a godly manner. In a loving manner. So many people are watching to see how we as Christians are handling conflict. Okay, so we have made some mistakes. Mistakes can be corrected and we can show the world how God forgives and makes us stronger. We're all human and we think differently, and we hurt each other, sometimes purposely, sometimes unintentionally. I serve a BIG God and I also know that the majority of people at FBCJax have good hearts and serve God to the best of their ability. FBCJax is full of loving, godly people. I pray for healing at FBCJax. I look forward to the day when I will be able to look across the aisle and see WD and his sweet family again.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.""Be ye kind, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you."

It's obviously all about the money. Once the giving dropped, they came out with guns blazing. Now, what does that say about priorities? It is the money and nothing but the money. Once a church becomes a "corporation" it ceases to be a church. A church is not a business - it's merely a gathering of Christians to worship God. The bigger a church grows, the farther from God they usually end up. Mac has said that loves to preach, and that he'd preach for free. Maybe it's time to put that to the test. Either he was lying or he meant it. Test him: stop his pay and see where preaching really is on his list. I dare say you'd see the real deal then. It's ALL about the money. Sadly....

"Watchdog - has anyone from the church, (staff member, deacon, trustee, Soud, Blount, etc) contacted you to this day about your questions, or about their handling of this? What about your wife, anyone contacted her to talk about any of this?

If not, why not? Are they being "led" by detectives and lawyers or by the Holy Spirit?

No one has contacted me, except I have talked on the phone with John Blount once or twice and that was to work out an arrangement by which we could watch my daughter sing on December 7th. I was unsuccessful, as they wanted me to first meet with the six men alone with no representation, no bylaws and no basis for their allegations. But since those phone conversations with Blount - and his voicemails and emails to let me know they were going to discipline me on 2/23, nothing else.

But other than that, there has been zero, nada, zip, communication from the church administration and lay leaders.

I'm sure that if the Brunsons were saying I was a stalker or stealing their mail, they have successfully vilified me and who on staff would want to reach out to a criminal. Even John Blount has apparently believed the lies about me, according to deacons who were in the meeting and said I was accused of those terrible things.

I am committed to getting to the truth. Persistent. Unrelenting. I will just as stubbornly go after the truth about subpoenas, criminal investigations and lies about stalking and mail stealing and slander as Mac is stubbornly blaming his congregation for gossip and refusing to address issues his congregation is concerned about. I'm just as stubborn as he is, believe me.

Only I don't stomp and stare and yell and use church resources to get my message out.

Anon 8:30,I could not have said it better. I too shared that I had read this blog with a trustee and he attempted to shame me and attack me by stating I was in WD's camp. It's not over though...God will not be mocked by FBC leaders who try to cover the truth...it will come out.

"Most baptists know some bible verses out of context. That is why pastors can teach about 'tithing' (Old Covenant) instead of offerings (To help those in need in the Body and to the Great Commission) and get by with it. Folks just do not know better. They probably do not know that Paul made tents so as not to be a burden on the churches."

That's what one of my daughters said to me after church. "Daddy, can we go to another church next week? I'm tired of hearing about money. I want to hear about Jesus."

Frankly, I've been wondering the same thing. I remember when Steve Gaines first came to Bellevue, he said that every January would be "stewardship month". I took that to mean that at the first of every year the sermons would be about faithfulness with one's time, talents, and giftedness. And yet here we are halfway through March, and all of the sermons have been about money, and how real Christians give at least 10% of their earnings to the church.

A lot of sermons (not just by Steve) have rubbed me the wrong way, but last Sunday's was the first time in my life I felt like getting up and walking out on one. The "lesson" began with images of Bernie Madoff on the imag screen, and a quick summary of his corruptions. A direct correlation was drawn between this corrupt financier and Christians who do not recognize tithing as a mandate for Christians (apparently, even those who give more than 10%). As I was wondering if the pastor truly meant that Christians who don't tithe deserved to spend their lives in jail, Steve quickly added that it was illegal to drive a stolen car, and many of the cars on the Bellevue lot were stolen since they had been bought with money that was stolen from God if their owners did not tithe.

My own views of tithing notwithstanding, is this really a proper way to treat the members of Bellevue? We've put up with an awful lot of unnecessary adversity over the last few years, so don't we deserve something better than to be equated with Bernie Madoff? Isn't the "per capita" giving higher than it's ever been? Aren't we supporting the ministries of the church like never before? Why in the world should we be subjected to a beatdown like that?-----------------------------------It's been interesting to me over the past three years what has been different people's "last straw." For some it was the way the pulpit committee "chose" Steve Gaines and basically shoved him down people's throats with no "trial period" or ever bringing in any other candidate. For some it was the reports of the new pastor's excessive salary and benefits. For some it was the fence-climbing "incident," the "information meeting" and SG's description of the "itty bitty fence," belittling his congregation at another church, the "communication committee" meetings, covering for Paul Williams for six months, SG's treatment of the victim, the 2007 "monkey business" meeting, the sheep-beating sermons, or yes, even the change in the music for some. It seems nearly everyone who left had a breaking point. A more recent group exited when they changed the church's mission statement. Amazing to me after everything else that would be the last straw for anyone, but to each his own.

Well said anon @8:30 pm -I wish more people had the courage to stand up. I would like to see more of watchdog's "friends" stand up for this family as you have. Even anonymously, it will speak to the masses if they are not only pictured as slanderous, sinful criminals - but the real view of who they are and have proven themselves to be through the years.WE ALL COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that you cannot do this publicly or even in conversations with others at church. We have all been taught to keep our eyes off this blog and to rally with the Pastor...who would want to rebel, look at what happened to WD"s family.This has to stop...someone in leadership, make the RIGHT move! You won't leave the church in shame (though you will probably be asked to leave), you will leave as a spiritual hero for doing what is right. I know there are good people at FBC, living in fear at this moment. What a shame.

I went to FBC Jax thinking that I had finally found a church that I could agree with doctrinally, and that the people there were truly Christian. Until I had a question. Just one question about a sermon. Then it all changed, and suddenly it was like the door was slammed in my face. I went there for help, and I have gotten complete disillusionment and the door slammed on me. I have gotten estrangement from my family, too, for reading this blog, because what I have read in the last week has made it where I could never go back to FBC Jax and live with myself. Try telling that to people who support FBC Jax and refuse to even look at this blog because they've been "told" not to. See, to them this was just a devil's tool to make people not go to church. Something I used to think too, until now. To watch a church you thought you could trust subpeona the records of a victim of pastor abuse like Tiffany Croft and say it was because of possible criminal activity on her part was my last straw. Until that is justified by someone or there is a good reason given for that appalling behavior, I don't know how anybody can go to that church. I don't know how anybody can justify that. And to think that won't be answered for somewhere is blindness. Maybe in a church of thousands of members it doesn't matter to the leadership of the church what happens to that one, two, three, or even 50 members who see something so incredibly wrong and can't live with it. But it matters to God. I NEVER thought I'd say this, but sadly, very sadly, what the Watchdog had to say is being given such credence right now by the behavior of this church and its actions to stop him and people not even involved in this blog, that....well, its SO DISILLUSIONING, and I sadly think I was right all along about several things. Where is God in all of this? When LEADERS act like this, these are the things that make people start thinking...wow....is GOD like this, too? Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind lately, this being not the first time I've seen Baptists act this way. Is this the reflection of the God they serve?

The only earthly person that held this church together was Dr. Lindsay. Once this Godly man died his influence died with him. Immediately, some "personalities" came forward and it has been downhill since.

I'm sorry you got treated that way when asking a question about a sermon. But sadly, I believe you're right that unfortunately there seems to be a "no questions allowed" kind of mentality.

When we ask a question it's because we have a legitimate question; but when we ask, we get the attitude that we are asking for the sake of being antagonistic. So instead of simply and sincerely answering our questions we get a "how dare you!!!" kind of attitude in reply.

I am not in any way in a position to judge the wisdom of your initial criticisms of FBC. For whatever reason, they have fallen on deaf ears.

It seems that since you have been unable to persuade your fellow members to see things your way, that you should probably move to another place. Hopefully, your experience there will be a good one.

I have not read many of your posts over the last few months. I believe that what I have read comes close to crossing the line from criticisms that are made legitimately to allegations that are more than mere criticisms, even though they may be phrased as "opinions."

I am and lawyer and an elder at my church. If our pastor and his family became a target of the type of things said on this blog (and I am assuming that you are sincere in your beliefs), I believe that I would advise the authorities as well. This is particularly the case since your blogging is anonymous (which I don't really criticize). It's just that if things like this are anonymous, and the Brunsons feel that their personal lives may be being invaded, I would err on the side of proactivity in finding out what was going on. The safety of my pastor and his family, and the financial stability of the church are at issue. It could be outsiders or a derranged person doing these things or it could be someone who really wants to destroy the church for some reason, and he/she is using an anonymous blog, posing as a member, to try and do this.

I am not an expert in this area, but all of this would give me some concern, and I would contact the authorities.

If I found out that it was a church member whom I did not believe would harm my pastor or family, or was not trying to inflict commercial damage on the church, then I would not press any charges. But by then, if I had the name, I would refer the matter to the elders for further action.

I do wish you both well. I have not lived through the months at FBC that you both have lived, nor have I lived through witnessing how the church leadership attempted to process this.

Sitting here now, however, it just seems to me that you both would be happier some other place, and apparently you are.

The church will have to decide whether it and its members are pleased with the leadership. Time will tell on these type things.

But I hope that you, and the church, can move on to something productive.

I can't believe you're an atty. & yet made the statement that you would also "notify the authorities." You made that statement along with another one: "I have not read many of your posts over the last few months." And it's obvious to me that you have no idea of what has transpired & yet you feel free to make a judgment call.

Remind me never to contact an atty. who has your first name -- because an atty. worth his salt would never give advice to contact the authorities without even understanding the whole issue.

Louis - good hypothetical, but it doesn't apply to FBC Jax in this situation. They made it clear to deacons and even visitors at the pastor's conference that they wanted to identify this blogger and "shut em down." They knew it would be wrong to make up charges and have a detective (who is a member) get this information, so for months and over a year, they speculated as to who it might be, although they had a handful of suspects. Also it was obvious from the writings that the blogger was no outsider.

Anyway, finally, the day the Chest of Joash offering was counted, they called Detective Hinson and opened a criminal information. Subpoenas were issued, not just on the FBCJAXWATCHDOG blog site, but on Tiffany Croft and SLyons as well. Then, when no criminal activity was found relating to the blog, it seems a second file was opened in which Comcast records were subpoenad.

And yes, you need an official to sign the subpoena. A State Attorney or Judge. Citizens have no authority to issue subpoenas to others on their own like some have mistakenly said above.

The issue really is "what lengths did the church go to obtain the blogger's indentity." That issue is not going to go away.

And the blog remains... And Mac still seems angry and focused on bloggers and not on Jesus....(listen to Sunday's sermon) And Mac continues to jet set around the world...(In Israel again this year with his buddies...at our expense?)

Does anyone know if Mac gets PAID based on how many people sign up to go with him? I know this is standard procedure with pastors, but can't be sure with Mac.

WHAT GOOD ARE FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS IF LOCAL CHURCHES AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN EASILY OBTAIN THE INFORMATION AND THEN GIVE IT PEOPLE TO USE TO HARM THE PERSON WHOSE PRIVACY WAS VIOLATED? Any answers to this question?

Should something be done to hold those that do this accountable in some manner?

"They" may be coming for you next. At least the blogger was able to blog for over a year before they came after him and his family. YOU and YOUR FAMILY may get this treatment for asking one question. Or for disagreeing about some doctrine? So, shut up and give or move on to another church. Amen? Amen! And that means ALL of you. Deacons and your wives included.

Because nothing is wrong. You and IIW( the poor preacher who wants Mac to live like him) are not current members.

Why is your opinion any better than that of any FBC member?

Matt, you are quick to criticize from afar with "no dog in this fight".

March 24, 2009 12:07 PM

You really have been taught to think this way, haven't you. You do not know any better. For that I am grieved in my heart for you.

You speak of opinions, I speak of scripture. the whole pericope. Not just the verses that are twisted to affirm cult of personality.

WD has had the power of the Pharisees come down on him. They have gone to Ceasar. You think this is grand and justified. You actually believe this is about sides, don't you?

FBC is not a church. You just believe that it is. Perhaps if you really begged the Holy Spirit to teach you and read the Word in depth, you might see it and 'come out from her'. I pray you do. This is not about sides.

But right now, you are listening to false teachers. You should not listen to me. You should get on your face and beg Jesus Christ to send you the Holy Spirit to understand the Word.

Time is short.

BTW: You do not understand the concept of the 'catholic' church. It means universal church. And it still applies even if Rome stoled the name.

There is only ONE Body of Christ in the whole world. You think there are going to be lines for Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists, etc on J-Day?

BTW, I have run across Louis on Wade's blog and always get a chuckle out of his comments. He tries to play the learned man of the law with his comments. But we really do not know if he is an attorney, do we? His comments are full or pragmatism and he does seek to protect an organization. I just do not read much about scrpture from him at all.

He sounds like the type that would kick a 'dog' if the dog did not agree with his earthly master.

I certainly would not hire him for legal advice if he really is an attorney. I could picture him making deals with the judge for his own advancement or to get a better for a richer client.

"commercial damage"? "the financial stability of the church are at issue" This is the whole crux of the matter: Watchdog has made enough people aware of the problems with the leadership that giving is down. Yet what do some worry about? The FINANCIAL situation of the church. Yes, hit them where they live and the hornets come out! More evidence that the wrong thing is paramount. "Let me tell you something" (to quote someone): if this is really God's church, He doesn't NEED your money. But if not, the finances are irrelevant. But everything certainly does seem to revolve around the almighty dollar, doesn't it? A while back Mac said people who don't tithe weren't trusting God. Well, what does his constant harping about finances say, except that perhaps it's he who isn't trusting God. Did I just say that? You better believe I did! My point is, those who post about the potentiall financial harm of some blogger are actually proving that the wrong thing is important here. God doesn't need anyone's money; if it's His work, He will make sure it's funded. The moment someone starts going after people to give that money, they have turned from God to man. If you only give to please some demanding pastor, you have wasted your money. It's the heart behind the giving that matters, and you can't force that attitude from anyone. So Louis the lawyer, whether you realize it or not, you've simply illustrated the wrong priorities here, and in any other church that doesn't trust God to provide the means for the work. Here's a thought: maybe the funds aren't coming in because God doesn't WANT them there. Something to think about.

Matt, I have read the biography of George Mueller. He's one man who truly understood how to trust God. I keep comparing his ways with Mac's and it's a sorry comparison indeed. Perhaps someone should give Mac a copy of the book and ask him to read it. Thanks for the mention of George Mueller, Matt. Any more thoughts on a book?

Yet another reason to question your offerings to FBCJax. Ministrywatch.com has a very interesting video clip on the INSP Network; anyone giving directly or indirectly (and giving to FBCJax is indirectly giving to INSP) should watch this.

My reaction was that of an elder. If my pastor's wife or the pastor felt like their personal lives were being invaded, I would want the authorities to look into it, especially in the case of an anonymous blog.

I don't know who the other people are, so I don't know why subpoenas were issued for them.

Another Anon mentioned that the context of the blog shows that the person would have to be a member. That would not necessarily be true. It certainly could be, but not necessarily. There are groups and organizations that are very interested in and follow some large evangelical churches. I agree that it is remote, given all of the detail in this case, but it would concern me enough to look into it out of an abundance of caution.

I agree that the "shut 'em down" comment is indicative of revenge. But that comment is short sighted. It would be one thing to discover whether one's pastor is being stalked etc., but that would never result in shutting down a blog. It would only confirm whether there would need to be any concern. As proof, the Dog's blog is still up and running. I don't think that confirming the source of an anonymous blog under all of the circumstances would ever lead to shutting down a blog. There is a logical disconnect there.

Matt, I am sorry to have bothered you so much by my comments. Those are pretty harsh comments lodged at me. I would hope that you would not be so disappointed in or angry at me. I assume that I have touched a raw nerve. Maybe we can be agreeable later.

I agree that I do not try to quote bunches of scripture in my comments. That is by design. Nothing is less enlightening to me that groups of Christians throwing proof texts at each other.

D, I am very sympathetic to the concerns of wasteful spending, family members on staff (i have commented about that before, though not in this case) etc. I have seen, however, some outsiders try to hurt churches financially. Again, my comments were made as an elder at my church and what I would do if the circumstances were similar.

I believe that if the subpoenas were obtained unlawfully, that will be a problem.

I was trying to put myself in the position of an elder in a church where this was going on, and whether I would be moved to follow up with the authorities. I believe that I would. I know that angers some people. But I hope we can agree to disagree.

"My reaction was that of an elder. If my pastor's wife or the pastor felt like their personal lives were being invaded, I would want the authorities to look into it, especially in the case of an anonymous blog."

This is why many pastors want elders now. Not because they look like Matt 5 and are servants but because they are protection. YOu can't have the lowly pew sitters in on the decisions for the "organization". You need a CEO and board of directors.

"Matt, I am sorry to have bothered you so much by my comments. Those are pretty harsh comments lodged at me. I would hope that you would not be so disappointed in or angry at me. I assume that I have touched a raw nerve. Maybe we can be agreeable later."

Not angry with you at all. You are the typical 'product' of our carnal "churches". But nice try alluding to some 'hurt' in my background (raw nerve) that would cause me to comment on you. This is a typical tactic used to silence those that ARE abused all over the SBC. "they can't be objective because they were hurt'.

Trust me, I know the drill. I used to use it, too. That was before I got saved. I know your type well. I was one of you.

"I agree that I do not try to quote bunches of scripture in my comments. That is by design. Nothing is less enlightening to me that groups of Christians throwing proof texts at each other."

Hey, nice shot! I hope you are keeping score, because I am not. The problem with your comments is that they reek of pragmatism and have nothing to do with the admonitions of scripture. You come from a worldly pragmatic paradigm. Of course, you cannot see that because you have imported that paradigm into what you think scripture is saying. You probably believe the word 'office' is really in the NT.

"I was trying to put myself in the position of an elder in a church where this was going on, and whether I would be moved to follow up with the authorities. I believe that I would. I know that angers some people. But I hope we can agree to disagree."

See what I mean? No mention of right and wrong or turning the other cheek. Nothing of a Matt 5 response of those who are to model Christ as shepherds.

No mention of elders and pastors abusing the civil authorities for their own gain. Just concerns for 'commercial damage'

Pure pragmatism. And these are the folks in leadership in our churches. Run while you can, folks. It is epidemic. They serve themselves. Not Christ.

"Thanks for the mention of George Mueller, Matt. Any more thoughts on a book? "

I rarely recommend books because Christians are reading everything except scripture these days. Christianity has become a commerical 'market' that can have 'commercial damage' as per Louis.

I do enjoy bios of folks like Hudson Taylor, Muller, etc.

I would recommend HOLINESS by JC Ryle. Best explanation of biblical sanctification I have ever read. Of course, he has been dead a while. So we are safe from him preaching 'another gospel' as so many who are marketing 'Christian' books are doing today.

Louis,I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here, even though I don't agree with everything that you said. I have a question about your statement: "I was trying to put myself in the position of an elder in a church where this was going on, and whether I would be moved to follow up with the authorities. I believe that I would. I'm trying to figure out what you meant by "where this was going on". Are you saying that, based on what you read on FBC Jax Watchdog blog, if you were in leadership at that church, you would have wanted a criminal investigation to take place? What did the Watchdog write that was so threatening as to warrant that? Or are you saying that a criminal investigation was warranted based on the blog plus an unsubstantiated rumor that the blog author may have "stalked" the pastor's wife, photographed her, or stolen their mail? Does the mere suggestion of possible wrongdoing, without any evidence whatsoever (evident from the fact that the case was closed with a finding of no evidence criminal activity), justify requesting involvement of the criminal justice system? Or am I misreading you entirely?

Let me say that after many years association with this church I have found it to be made up almost entirely of CLIQUES. It takes awhile to realize this. A clique of who has the money. A clique of who lives in what expensive area. A clique of who are "best friends" with whom. A clique of who is in the "in crowd". A clique of who "KNOWS" what is going on in the church. A clique of "leading deacons". A clique of who are "best buddies" with "the preacher and his wife". A clique of the most influential wives. A clique of who's children get the best parts in the music productions. A clique of who gets invited to what parties. A clique of who's children are acceptable to date. A clique of who gets to "serve" in what position in the church. CLIQUES, CLIQUES, CLIQUES, CLIQUES, CLIQUES!!!!!

Thanks for the note and the excellent question. You are the type of person that it is fun to dialogue with on these blogs.

I have not gone and read the entirety of Watchdog's blogs over the months. But based on what I have read, I don't think that anything he has said alone would cause me to think the lodging of a criminal complaint would be in order - for the blogging, alone.

The other facts that have been alleged give this situation a different dimension for me.

My understanding (and please forgive me if some of my facts are wrong) is that the pastor and/or his wife complained that they were being stalked or followed and things related to that (mail, house being photographed etc.).

I do not know the Brunsons. I have never met them. I saw Mac Brunson nominate someone at the San Antonio convention, but that's the only time I have heard him speak.

If my pastor or his wife came to our elder board and said what I understand the Brunsons said, I would take it at face value. I would not try to investigate it or substantiate it. Obviously, if I thought they were crazy, that would give me pause. But otherwise, just in the role of an elder at the church, I would be supportive and try to address the concerns that they had. I would let the authorities do the investigating. I think that I would take their concerns seriously and at face value unless I had some reason not to believe them. If I felt that way about them, we would probably be having a conversation about whether they would remain as pastor.

So, with those allegations relating to the personal safety of the pastor and his family, I would urge that the information be turned over to the authorities and that all reasonable efforts be made to find out who was stalking the Brunsons.

The presence of an anonymous blog under these circumstances that is very critical of the pastor and his family takes on a new concern. We all just witnessed a pastor being shot last week. And a few months before that, some people in a Unitarian church in Tennessee were killed by an enraged gunman.

I don't know the Watchdog. I suspect that there is no way in the world he would do such a thing, but I base that in part on the basis of some of the folks vouching for him. I don't know anything based on personal knowledge.

So, if I were an elder at a church under these circumstances, I would want to report all of this to the authorities and find out whatever information could be obtained to rule in or rule out what is happening and who is doing what.

So many people on this blog know many more facts than I do. There may be facts yet to uncover. I understand that there are legal issues involved here. I am not licensed in Florida, so I am not in a position to know what the standards for subpoena issuance are there. My experience has been that unless there is an on-going case, that the person wanting a subpoena has to lay out the facts to someone to get that subpoena.

The Brunsons could have fabricated the entire affair. But that can't be proved or disproved. They can only report what they believed was happening to them.

Based on that, I suspect the authorities would ask if they have any idea who would be angry at them or who might have had an interest in stalking them. I suspect that an anonymous blogger who has said some really unkind things about them would be suspect number 1. So, they found out who he was.

That's my take on this from over 500 miles away, and not knowing anything about the church or the personalities. And that's my take on what I would do as an elder at our church. I would definitely want the authorities to look into any stalking allegations etc.

I don't have a position on the church's and the dog's troubles. I do think that once a church body has decided to go in a certain direction (even if it's a direction that I would not advise) that it's usually unproductive to keep arguing about it once you have said your peace. But that, too, is a general feeling since I am sure that I do not know all of the governance and other issues at this church.

Matt love your keen insights and experiences concerning mega churches mentalities......These same tactics are being used in medium and small churches as well....And unfortunately the people are just as blind as the mega's......Thanks again!!! ...Matt,maybe we will get and opportunity to talk off blog one day!!!

This is a quote by John Reisinger that is quite relevant to some of the comments here and how we view the 'church' or ekklesia

John Reisinger quote:

"The Landmark Baptists, along with Rome, insists there is no such thing as a universal/invisible ekklesia. They are convinced the only ekklesia in the NTS [New Testament Scriptures] is the local/visible ekklesia. If we ask the question another way, the Landmark Baptist and the Romanist miss the boat. Instead of asking whether the visible or invisible ekklesia is the most used concept in the NTS, let's ask this question: "Do the NTS emphasis union with Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit, which all agree is true of all Christians, or does it emphasize membership in a local congregation of professing Christians?" That is bottom line in the discussion.

The moment you try to make the "local/visible" ekklesia to be an institution, or physical organization, which is supposed to be Christ's Vicar on earth, as opposed to the ekklesia being an invisible/universal spiritual organism, you are half way back to Rome.

My contention is that the NTS do NOT give us two different definitions of the ekklesia of Christ. There is not a spiritual ekklesia where all who are in it are saved, and a physical ekklesia made up of both saved and lost. The moment we allow these two different kinds of ekklesias, we have denied and changed the basic meaning of ekklesia as being "the called out ones." The difference between the so-called 'universal' ekklesia and 'local' ekklesia is not that one is a spiritual organism made up of regenerate people and the other is a physical organization with both saved and lost in it. There is only one ekklesia and the different uses of the word is only referring to how many of the 'called out ones' you are talking about. In one instance you are talking about all the called out ones, or the ekklesia for whom Christ died, and in the other instance you are talking about all those living in Corinth, or wherever, for whom Christ died.

The Bible does not talk about the difference between an organization and an organism. The so-called visible ekklesia does not take on a life of its own independent of a living relationship with her Lord. The ekklesia of Christ does not have an ounce of authority on her own. She speaks for Christ only when she speaks His words. She represents Christ only when she repeats what her Lord has spoken. She cannot say, "Christ has made me His Vicar on earth therefore you must obey me without question."

Matt: It is great to see in print what many of us have known and discussed privately for years. The problem has always been what could we do about it. And as we see.... basically nothing. We are told, after many years service, loyalty not to mention financial support, just to leave if we don't like THINGS. In other words many long time members pour themselves, their resources and memories into the church and we are so disregarded that we are completely discarded if we don't like the agenda. So just leave and let THEM have the church which of course includes the property that others paid for. I guess it's THEIR turn to make the money off of our investment of time and money. Just my opinion.

These new churches are nothing but the reflection of the personality(pastor)leading them...Then what happens is that the truly discerning persons(WD)see's what is going on and they respond with questions...He then is attacked and villanized and asked to leave or is thrown out...This fits the agenda of the authoritarian personality who is attempting to mold the remaining people into "his image"...Then the authoritarian leader takes the undiscerning Biblically ignorant people and the church tares;;The Jones town type people and abuses and fleeces them at his leisure for his pragmatic,self-aggrandizing ventures!!!..What do you think Matt???

Matt: It is great to see in print what many of us have known and discussed privately for years. The problem has always been what could we do about it. And as we see.... basically nothing. We are told, after many years service, loyalty not to mention financial support, just to leave if we don't like THINGS. In other words many long time members pour themselves, their resources and memories into the church and we are so disregarded that we are completely discarded if we don't like the agenda. So just leave and let THEM have the church which of course includes the property that others paid for. I guess it's THEIR turn to make the money off of our investment of time and money. Just my opinion.

March 25, 2009 11:16 AM

Friend, you do not realize how blessed you are! You see it and can get out! Think of those who don't!

Let them have the money, the land, the buildings, etc. God is going to burn it all up one day, anyway. It means nothing and has no value in the Kingdom.

What is valuable and eternally lasting is only spiritual. Think of Jesus Who had 'no where to lay His Head'.

There is much you can do about it and it is being done. Folks are being warned. If they refuse to get on their knees and seek truth alone with the Holy Spirit through the Word, there is nothing you can do about that but pray for the true Bride of Christ. that Her lampstand will not be removed.

I have a dear old friend who is still stuck in that system. He is a wealthy businessman who poured himself into building a mega church over the last 25 years. He was an elder who spent his own time and money directing all the building projects and growth of this monstrosity. He literally gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to this mega. Maybe even millions by this time.

He was completely respected by 25,000 members and in the community.

But he kept seeing things he knew were wrong. He would bring them up and be told he was too judgemental or that it was no big deal. (Even elders have their pet people and projects they debate and many issues they ignore or sweep under rugs)

Over time, these 'wrong things' came to a head and could not be ignored. (Mega's have serious issues that most folks do not understand). He decided to take a firm stand on them within the elders and ended up not voted in by the elders for the first time in 25 years.

But here is the clincher. Only those intimately involved know the real story. The public story is that he decided to step down after many years. He is still there as a member. His own cognative dissonance will not allow him to admit that 25 years of pouring himself into an organization was a sham. He was not building the 'kingdom'. Just buildings and a system that 'recuited' people to attend.

He was 'overseeing' the building of beautiful and functional buildings that served for activities and entertainment and hired people to serve the leaders. Many people. Many people who did not spiritually qualify for such work.

It had nothing to do with saving souls or modeling Christ as the called out ones. But his pride will not allow him to admit that and move on to real kingdom work that is not so very glamerous.

He cannot let go of what he believed in the past because it would mean it was mostly meaningless. So, he continues to believe a lie that it really was kingdom work all along.

I am not saying that describes you but I can promise you it describes some still at FBC Jax.

Then the authoritarian leader takes the undiscerning Biblically ignorant people and the church tares;;The Jones town type people and abuses and fleeces them at his leisure for his pragmatic,self-aggrandizing ventures!!!..What do you think Matt???

March 25, 2009 11:48 AM

I think that if most mega's preached the truth about the Wrath poured out on our Savior on that cross and the truth about sanctification, the pews would empty for the most part.

On the other hand, many ARE leaving mega's because they want to be fed more meat. Or, they are seeing through the messages beating them up for more and more money. (Most do not realize that mega's are having a hard time. More folks are leaving than are attending. And 'attending' is more important than membership to a mega)

A casual acquaintance of mine told me last night about a great sermon preached at his mega last week. ( I am intimately aware of the inner workings of that church having been involved with it in the past. And I still have some connections with the leadership)

This sermon was about the greed of folks calling themselves Christians who sue others.

What I did not tell this acquaintance (because he is in love with this place) is that this church has 6 pending lawsuits against it right now and the suits are so big they have one employee, a former attorney, who is there under another pretence, who spends all his time dealing with the paperwork for the attorneys. His job description is something else entirely. (typical of a mega)

I also did not tell him that this particular church pays a huge retainer to a law firm for just this purpose. Offerings (they call them tithes) going to pay wealthy attorneys would not go over well.

Want to know why I did not tell him these things? Because he would not believe it. And he would automatically think that anyone suing a church (actually leaders in a church) is evil.

What he also does not know is that it is NOT a 'church'. And some of the suits are quite deserving of a hearing.

But they probably won't get one because even evil leaders in a church are most likely exempt in their capacity. But, what most do not realize is that the mega might settle to keep such things from the public. They do not want folks to know what goes on there.

Most folks who sue want a public hearing, though. To them it is not about money but wanting truth OUT.

I am not saying it is smart to sue. I think it is a waste of time. However, 1 Corin 6 applies only true believers. Not to charlatans.

I have to confess that a "Chest of Joash" offering sounds really corny. That's just my take on it.

Special offerings are low all around these days - at least that's my experience.

A smaller than expected offering can also indicate a lack of enthusiasm of a congregation for a particular program etc. Leadership really has to have a feel for their congregation. You can't beat money out of people.

Restraing orders usually are issued to restrain people from going around others, being in their presence. They are used a lot in domestic relations cases. I don't practice in that field.

As I confessed, I have missed a lot of the facts here over the months. Have the Brunsons been trying to go to WD's home? That would easily be something that could be stopped if the facts warranted it. I just thought that they did not know who WD was.

I am not sure that a court would restrain someone's speech - Brunson's or WD's. In fact, I think that the court would not do that. Libel and slander suits would be a way to address that.

Finally, not sure it was you or someone else who expressed frustration at having built and contributed to a church over the years, and then feeling like the heritageand culture of the church was being disrespected or thrown aside just because a new person comes to pastor the church.

This is going on all over the place and it is tragic.

Again, I don't want to be seen as casting a judgment on the situation at hand because I am not in a good position to do that.

But I think it is terrible when a church changes pastors and the new pastor comes in and diregards the heritage of that church. In many instances, I might agree that there need to be changes in the church. But it takes maturity and love and patience to make many changes.

Mark Dever is a good example of how to go into an older, historic church, and build a new vision with the people who are there - that builds on the church's historic strenghts.

Someone in a comment above did not like the concept of elders. I don't like them either, if a new pastor rolls into town, and hand picks elders. But if the church picks them, and the elders are actually a plurality of leadership with the pastor, that is a great way of preserving the heritage of a church that also provides support to a new pastor to help guide the church through change.

In too many places, a new pastor can come in and turn the church upside down, but so long as he can speak eloquently and persuade just over 50% (in some churches, it takes 67%to dismiss the pastor), of the congregation to back him, he can't be fired. It can be a bad scene.

There is a balance, however, between that, and a situation that is stale and not open at all to any changes. That can be just as bad.

"Have the Brunsons been trying to go to WD's home? That would easily be something that could be stopped if the facts warranted it. I just thought that they did not know who WD was."

It is the same principle, Louis. Brunson has made nasty remarks about the blogger from pulpits. And he did abuse his position to find out WD's identity. How is that different?

I think WD should be concerned for his safety. After all, Brunson has a lot to lose and will do all he can to ruin WD.

How is it different from the Brunson's claiming they are being stalked with no proof? Why does WD need proof? Brunson has none.

As a matter of fact, WD should be more concerned. He has no security guards watching over him. No elder board going to bat for him. No financial resources he can dip into like Brunson has. Is he in a protected gated community?

I think he should be plenty worried. I know how these guys think and it would not be hard to get some blind follower to do something to scare WD.

Read the hateful comments here by the followers!

My point is that he COULD use the same tactics the Brunson's are using. I bet many would call that evil if WD did it. But they cannot see the evil in Brunson.

I appreciated your comments. I feel much the same way you do about this. I tend to lean towards being in favor of the church. But the fact is that I nor anyone else who has only read this blog can know the actual facts in context. I do not doubt that many of the facts that WD has shared are true. But we will never hear the other side of the story. I also probably tend to lean towards FBC Jax because I have never been mistreated by the Church, but I have often seen men write ugly letters, notes, e-mails to staff members some of which were signed and some of which were anonymous. I disagree with the approach WD has taken. If the church has decided to "turn a blind eye" to the alleged misconduct then so be it. WD may have some valid "legal" concerns now (I have no idea if he does or does not). But the truth is that his original complaints were absolutely only his disagreements with church leadership. It appears the majority of the church body decided that they wanted to follow that leadership. In that case it is time for WD to step down from his post and find leadership he can follow. Issues of changing bylaws, remodeling offices, funding schools, raising money for maintenance repairs, land gifts, etc. are not against the law nor are they against Scripture. These are the things WD had a problem with. When the church body has decided to follow their Pastor in issues like these it is not the place of one member to go about the tactics used here.

Matt said....."I think he should be PLENTY WORRIED. I know how these guys think and it would not be hard to get some blind follower to do something to scare WD."..........Matt that is a "FRIGHTENING" statement!!!!..But when you look at how the religious authoritities hounded,treated and eventually cruxcified Jesus and anyone else who disagreed with them..It should not surprise me or anybody else what the likes of men like Pope Brunson are capable of!!!

"But the truth is that his original complaints were absolutely only his disagreements with church leadership."

Exhbit A of pragmatism in our churches.

It was only a disagreement. Wasn't that what BBC said about Gaines and the bloggers. They just "disagreed" on having a pedophile minister of prayer. After all, he said 'sorry'. Nevermind 1 Timothy. That does not apply to them.

That is all it was. A disagreement.

This person does not know wrong from right. This person does not know if it is wrong for a shepherd to lie about and use the authorities to go after a person with NO PROOF. This person does not know if it is wrong to have a star chamber excommuication where they did not even pronounce the name of the accused when they knew it! (There is a reason they didn't and it is a legal reason...very pragmatic...nothing to do with the kingdom)

Notice how many folks think they are being 'reasonable' but have no clue what scripture teaches. They don't even know what a true overseer would look like in terms of behavior. A true overseer would never write the things Louis writes that are simply part of the dialectic. Pragmatism and rationalization.

They are so used to the cult of personality, they would not recognize a true servant of the Lord. They would think they are wimps! They marry their worldly paradigms with their church structure.

WD knew he was seeing things that were not of the Kingdom. He wrote about them. He has a duty to warn others. Just like John wrote warning about Diotrephes.

You can just see the cognative dissonance in that person's comment.

Note this example:

"But the fact is that I nor anyone else who has only read this blog can know the actual facts in context"

Let's see, audio tapes of Mac's own words do not count as context. His bizarre sermons do nt count as context. His actions and behavior do not count as context. (The house, land, church consultant, pastors conferences, hiring family, fancy offices, etc)

The facts of the changed and hidden bylaws do not count as context. Oh, I could go on but you get the point.

Some of us have even heard Brunson's comments made away from FBC Jax to know there is much more than just disagreement. The empire he wants to build is being threatened. And those who supported him coming there have to save face.

This person sees what they WANT to see because the truth would be too painful. Cognative dissonance.

Let me ask this person something. Would a true shepherd of our Lord get the authorities, abusing their position as both a civil authority and member of the church, to demand private records of a person. Is that what you think is normal kingdom behavior of a shepherd?

Wonder how Paul would have reacted to questions and disagreements? Well, we know! All we have to do it read about his defense of himself...much of it written from prison for His Names Sake. Not from some fancy office in a gated community.

Why not tell the whole church what they were planning to do using the civil authorities? Because it would not have gone over well at all and they know it. Why the sneaky stuff?

Would a true shepherd of our Lord make all things open and known if there were questions about their operations? Yes. That is exactly what Paul did explaining himself over and over in the Letters.

You are the church of Diotrephes. And agreeing with Louis only means you have bought into the organizational principles of our worldly system.

The fact is you WANT to believe Brunson. I do not know WD and I don't need to know him. Most of this I can check for myself using Brunson's own words in sermons and speaking gigs. And the fact, I have seen much worse myself. And I used to be a Brunson type, so I know the tactics inside and out. I have sat in too many meetings where we thought we were 'protecting' the 'ministry' when we were only protecting our own reputations.

The "system" in place breeds this type of behavior and false teaching. It has nothing to do with Christ.

And as an Elder I need to continue to learn what and what not to do so as not to displease my Lord!!!..Thank You!!!

March 25, 2009 1:24 PM

You have a hard job, my friend, as a true overseer. I, myself, am not qualified.

Being an overseer is not a titled position or office. It is a function within the Body. And just one of many functions.

You must love the Lord more than your 'function' as overseer. You must love truth more than the building, activities, and even the ministry.

You must realize that the only authority you have is the truth of the Word spoken. You have no authority over others in the Body. The Body, as a whole, does. (See 1 Corin 5 as an example)

You must see yourself as a servant to all. The greatest among you is the servant of all.

You must love the people more than yourself.

You must be willing to give more than you ever take.

You must be poor in spirit constantly mourning your own sin.

You must be in daily repentance and willing to take up your cross daily for His Name Sake.

You must be so humble as to take the slaps of those you are trying to teach to model the love of our Lord.

You must have tears in your heart when confronting wrong behavior in a brother.

You must balance on a razors edge of license or legalism when walking in the light of our Lord.

But most importantly, your knees must be calloused because you spend so much time on them.

Leader in the NT means to 'stand before'. This is a modeling of being image bearers.

Paul modeled by going to prison. By making tents, by confronting an senior Apostle over his own sin.

His old Pharisee mentors must have thought he was nuts to give all that up to have nothing on earth.

A true overseer looks nothing like what we have invented. It certainly does not look like a mega church pastor living in a gated community. It took me a long time to realize that.

It is no wonder we are not hated by the world. We look just like them and their secular businesses!

Matt

Well, I am home today and have written too much already. It is strange how so many comments bring back so many memories because I have heard, witnessed so much of this thinking over the last 20 years. I thought that way, myself!

Things are really the same in many churches all over the US.They have been built upon personalities and not of Christ. And we love our buildings too much.

Matt said....."I think he should be PLENTY WORRIED. I know how these guys think and it would not be hard to get some blind follower to do something to scare WD."..........Matt that is a "FRIGHTENING" statement!!!!..But when you look at how the religious authoritities hounded,treated and eventually cruxcified Jesus and anyone else who disagreed with them..It should not surprise me or anybody else what the likes of men like Pope Brunson are capable of!!!

March 25, 2009 1:31 PM

One last thing. I don't think they would beat WD up. But some redneck member might take it upon himself to do so. We have had to restrain some over zealous members from taking the law into their own hands when the preacher was critisized so I am not saying it will not happen.

What I was referring to was the planting of poison seeds using their gravitas as mega church leaders in the community. A poison word planted here and there can wreck havoc on a person's life and business.

We did this all the time. And we rationalized that we were 'protecting' others from this person and they deserved to know he was a trouble maker. Coming from a well respected elder of a mega, this has catastrophic results to someone. These leaders are usually well off businessmen in the community so folks listen to them.

I have serious guilt about all of this. Some folks I even tracked down to ask for forgiveness. Some I could not find. Some I know I have forgotten about because it was so long ago.

The point was always made: Don't question us or disagree with us. We will ACT kind to you in public but we will ruin you in private.

Matt thank you so-much for that advice...You are so right this is a tought responsibility but the Love of Christ and my love for Christ strengthens and sustains me!!!..Most of what you blogged I attempt to put into actions,knowing that I am not the people's Lord;.."Jesus Is"...That I have to give an account to Christ in how I treated His Sheep and represented His Name...I will continue to read with attentiveness your further comments...THANKS again!!!

Listening to clips of sermons is not in context. Reading one man's views is not in context. Don't assume that just because you used to be the kind of person WD is trying to make Mac out to be means that Mac is that person. Just because you feel awful about your shortcomings and mess ups doesn't mean you need to begin telling everyone else which is correct and which is not. I was saying that I am not taking WD side, but that I am not taking the church's either because I don't and can't know all the ins and outs.

For example you said

"Would a true shepherd of our Lord get the authorities, abusing their position as both a civil authority and member of the church, to demand private records of a person. Is that what you think is normal kingdom behavior of a shepherd?"

According to WD there was a belief that the blogger and the stalker were one in the same. Who knows? I don't. And I don't even know if MAC is the one who "demanded" these records. Where is MAC quoted in a sermon saying this? I sure haven't seen it.

.....Also what is your opinion of John MacAuthur Jr.and Dave Hunt ministries???

March 25, 2009 2:30 PM

You know, I spent so many years following men that I vowed to the Lord I would immerse myself in His Word and beg the Holy Spirit to teach me.

I just want to be a Berean. Paul commended them for questioning what he taught and searching the scriptures to see if what he taught was right. We should do the same with anyone teaching/preaching. If they are popular we should even be more concerned.

I am not that familiar with Dave Hunt but I am with McArthur. While I agree with a lot of what he writes, I think he is way too dogmatic on secondary non salvic issues. As a matter of fact, I think too many out there today are spending way too much time focusing on secondary stuff. People do not even know the basics, for crying out loud.

My study has taken me into territory that is very controversial and even bringing it up brings huge divisions and lots of name calling. Since they are not primary salvic doctrinal issues but only disagreements with interpretations, then why bother with disagreement on them? We can have grace. Think of the Jerusalem council. (smile)

But many are using their interpretations on secondary issues to beat the sheep.

Tithing is an example. So is the question of 'authority' structure in the church. Escatology is another one. Women functioning in the Body would be another secondary issue that is not worth dividing over. But many do.

If we can understand that salvation is a supernatual act, not just momental decision, it would change how we approach everything. If we can understand that we are not saved because Jesus hung on a cross, that would be monumental. We are saved because He took the Wrath we deserve. It is what happened ON the cross that is important. Others have died on crosses.

If we can understand that salvation and sanctification are two different things BUT NEVER do you see one without the other, then we have come a long way to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

If we can understand that Jesus was God in the Flesh and not some lesser god in the Trinity, we can understand the magnatude of what He accomplished. The Lord of Hosts gave up His glory and became a lowly man (God in the flesh) to take our deserved punishemnt. That is so huge that I don't know what more we could ever want from Him!

As to the secondary doctrinalstuff, we can disagree and love one another. But why make them primary salvic doctrine? That is what scares me about guys like McArthur.

I am not the culture warrior I used to be. One reason is because the Western church mimics the culture. We just don't admit it.

And I never forget that one can have correct doctrine and be unsaved. Matt 7

I still think we are going to see missionaries from China, the ME and even Africa come here to evangelize us as to what it means to really take up our crosses and follow Christ.

I am just ashamed I did not realize this sooner but praising Him for bringing me around.

Louis,You make some interesting points, some I hadn't thought of, particularly this:

The Brunsons could have fabricated the entire affair. But that can't be proved or disproved. They can only report what they believed was happening to them. Based on that, I suspect the authorities would ask if they have any idea who would be angry at them or who might have had an interest in stalking them. I suspect that an anonymous blogger who has said some really unkind things about them would be suspect number 1. So, they found out who he was.

Although that sounds like a reasonable scenario, so far I haven't seen anything that confirms that the complaint about "an on-going Internet incident that has possible criminal overtones" included any reference to possible stalking, etc. But since those records were destroyed upon completion of the criminal investigation, we may never know just what was alleged in the initial complaint.

Still, I am suspicious as to the timing of John Blount's contacting the Sheriff's office. And I think it is important for the Watchdog to attempt to discover if any abuse of power was involved in obtaining the subpoenas to Google and Comcast. I don’t understand on what basis subpoenas were issued if there was no evidence of a link between the blog and the alleged stalking, nor any other evidence of wrongdoing by the blogger (other than the personal feelings of the FBC Jax leadership about the blog, which would not be a criminal matter). I'm no lawyer, and the sum of my knowledge comes from too many cop and lawyer shows on TV (which I realize means I may not know anything accurate at all), but I always thought that obtaining a subpoena required more than suspicion without evidence. If I'm wrong about that, it is scary thought that our legal system doesn't require anything more than an accusation before a person's privacy can be compromised. I would hope that there are protections in place that would prevent a fishing expedition to attempt to obtain evidence in the absence of evidence.

" Don't assume that just because you used to be the kind of person WD is trying to make Mac out to be means that Mac is that person. "

So, I should not believe what I have witnessed him preach?

First of all, I have heard Brunson preach many times. I know who mentored him. I know where he comes from. He is the product of a very bad system. He suffers from the celebrity preacher syndrome. Like many others in the SBC and elsewhere.

But let's imagine that only 10% of what the WD has written is true: You have a serious problem.

Maybe you can tell me why they did not tell the whole church what they were doing when they used a member to abuse his position with the civil authorities to get information on WD?

Why the sneakiness and secrecy?

Of course, you will tell me you trust them because of their titles. That, I can believe.

"And I don't even know if MAC is the one who "demanded" these records."

Ha! I missed this the first time. Here we have the beginning of the defense. Nice seed planting, btw.

WD, I hope you have the ISP of this one. They know more, trust me on this even if they claim they are just speculating.

Of course Mac did not demand the records. That would be foolish. In his position he must have plausible deniability. That is rule number one. He knows that and so do his protectors.

Others in leadership, concerned for his 'protection' (and their reputations) got the records. He was only going along with what his 'kitchen cabinet' advised. As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me to hear them say that Mac did not know what they were planning to do and only knew AFTER the fact.

As a complete outsider and someone of no faith, what i have seen written here by some members of said church is diabolical. Yes, by all means stand strong with fellow members but, the personal attacks that i've read is something that i find personally out of order. WD from what i've read had the moral standing and integrity as a human being to let others know the corruption and abuse of power that happens in some places of worship.WD, if there were others with the integrity you have shown, the world would be a far better place.

"WD, I hope you have the ISP of this one. They know more, trust me on this even if they claim they are just speculating."

Oh great and mighty watchdog please do tell if you have my IP address :).. I am soooo in the know when it comes to FBC Jacksonville lol. I've never even been to Jacksonville. In fact I don't know anyone involved remotely in the situation. :) The first of FBC Jax and Mac was through this blog.

I honestly just speak my own opinions on the situation. No bias whatsoever coming from being ivolved on the other side ;).. just my own personal bias I guess from reading this blog.

I would like to set a few things straight here. The deacons were told that Mrs. Brunson was photographed and they "thought" it could possibly be WD. Well it's really strange to me why they didn't go to the law at that time! Why not? It was probably simply because they didn't think it was any kind of threat to Debbie. The date they went to the authorities was a LONG time (at least a year, maybe 1 1/2 yrs.) after she was supposedly photographed while out jogging.

Also, the deacons were given pages and pages of supposed copies of the WD blog. How could they have known if it was "pieces and parts" of the blog. Why didn't they tell the deacons ahead of time what the blog address was and let them go and read it for themselves? Maybe because the deacons wouldn't like what they read when they read the WHOLE story.

The fact is, the reason for the involvement of the legal system was because someone decided to get revenge instead of either ignoring the blog or maybe even (heaven forbid!) answering the questions that were brought up.

Last but not least, if they were interested in solving a problem they should have gone directly to the WD instead of delivering NO TRESPASS warnings and running off like scared rabbits!

Oh great and mighty watchdog please do tell if you have my IP address :).. I am soooo in the know when it comes to FBC Jacksonville lol. I've never even been to Jacksonville. In fact I don't know anyone involved remotely in the situation. :) The first of FBC Jax and Mac was through this blog.

I honestly just speak my own opinions on the situation. No bias whatsoever coming from being ivolved on the other side ;).. just my own personal bias I guess from reading this blog.

March 25, 2009 5:13 PM

Anon, your comment on March 25, 2009 3:14 PM ,does not match the one above in many ways.

Having worked with many mega churches I can tell you the scenerios and tactics are the same. No one wants to believe it and there will NEVER be enough proof for many of the sheeple. Those in power in mega's have many creative ways to keep information from the sheeple.

Like the guy who loved the sermon on lawsuits will never know that his church has some big ones pending and there was a REASON for that sermon. He will also never know that the church pays a retainer to a large firm in town. Only a handful know this. But that is ONE example of what folks don't know. And mega's make sure they don't know. It would disrupt the 'unity' and giving, of course.

I still think your use of certain phrasing is interesting and one would rarely hear it from someone far removed from the situation:

"And I don't even know if MAC is the one who "demanded" these records. Where is MAC quoted in a sermon saying this? I sure haven't seen it."

1. His leaders got the information. And he is THE leader there. Who else would demand the records outside of FBCJax? Any ideas?

2. Mac would never mention any details specifically about the supeonas to entire church BEFORE it was done. There would be too many questions. Now that the records are destroyed, they can say pretty much anything they want and it cannot be proved.

His not mentioning it in a sermon is not proof of anything.

I was speaking of his whole doctrinal modis operandi which matches the situation FBCJax now finds itself in. And many other mega churches.

Chest of Joash? I will go further than Louis that it is corny. It is a misapplication of scripture. A huge doctrinal stretch twisted to fit his needs. And that is just ONE example.

Matt, I have read your numerous posts and I am truly dismayed. On one hand you try to expound on certain scriptural principles and then other times you seem to be one of the main people fanning the flames of hate and discord.

I am sure that WD will not post this, but I hope that he does because I think that these points are well founded and deserve to be heard, especially threats of physical harm.

The Brunson family has been exposed to harm than WD. The extremely hateful comments coming from WD's supporters are a lot more inflammatory than what I have seen from the alleged FBC bloggers.

Have you forgot that WD was blogging about Brunson for a year and a half, making all types of accusations and innuendos towards him while remaining anonymous all that time?

I have yet to hear of any blogger suffer physical harm from anyone they blogged about, and yet we recently had a pastor up north brutally murdered in the pulpit because of some disgruntled person! With all of the hateful bloggers that I have seen here, Brunson is far more likely to have one of WD's supporters try something stupid.

You give Brunson way too much credit for power that he does not possess. Brunson has nothing to lose if he were to leave FBC and go somewhere else. You credit Brunson for wanting to destroy WD and his family. What absolute arrogance on your part.

By the way, do you live in northeast Florida or so other state of the union? Making these type of statements would almost certainly provide probable cause to find out who you really were.

Remember, WD for over a year and a half had a chance to go to Brunson and express his concerns. What was his problem and why did he not do that? Only WD knows for sure.

As far as "you knowing how these guys think" I think that you are full of yourself. As a matter of fact, some of WD's supports think that you are the next "disciple" or "prophet" of Jesus. Some of these bloggers almost deify you. That sir would concern me greatly.

As far as Brunson being in a gated, protected community---so what? That gated, protected community has been there since 1961. I can tell you that those $8/hr guards cannot keep anyone out that wants to go in there.

Probable cause is just that-probable cause! That can be something as simple as your March 25, 2009 12:59 PM blog published in the public eye or receiving an anonymous phone call threatening someone with bodily harm. That is the law.

WD continues to blog as fact what he perceives as "abuses" by Mac Brunson. Look at the heading on his blog. WD is the one who is blogging as fact "as he sees it". This certainly could be considered probable cause for "libel".

Brunson has never once mentionedWD, aka as the accused, or his wife or children from any public forum. WD continues to use a very public platform to rail against Brunson.

Again, for your to make the libelous claim that Brunson will "do all that he can do to ruin WD" is extremely mean-spirited and not the type of comment coming from one such as yourself who tries to hold himself out as spiritual.

What tactics are you referring to? I have not seen "Team Brunson" or anyone at FBC blogging all of this bovine scat about WD. I have not seen anyone start their on blog to blog anything that they want about WD, his wife, or his children. I have not seen any of the tactics as they have been used by WD. What are you trying to come up with?

My wife was "stalked" for over ten years by some nut case who sent anonymous letters making derogatory and threatening comments about her. I had probable cause but the State Attorney was not able to do anything about it because they were sent "anonymously" and had absolutely no way, including fingerprints, to track down who was doing it. If they had been a blogger, then I would have been able to tract down the individual.

Brunson making what you call "nasty" comments from the pulpit is a silly argument. Especially, since any of the comments would have been about some anonymous person. WD blogged for a year and a half before someone felt that probable cause existed to attempt to find out who the blogger was.

I have yet to hear Brunson or anyone else on staff mention WD's "real name".

Also, how do you know that WD does not have resources? He certainly lives in a much nicer area than most folks that I know. Besides, I am sure that all of the Mac Haters and FBC haters would be willing to donate to him, just like the octomom" if he would let them donate. But then, he would not be anonymous, would he.

Sorry for the long writing, but all of this is wearing very thin. He and his family have joined another fellowship and I am sure that they will embrace them well. I am not one of those MacMuppets, MacSheep, MacLuver or whatever all of the Mac & FBC haters use to describe Mac Brunson and the fellowship at FBC, but I will end on this note.

Bloggers who are not active members of FBC what do you care and why should your opinion count?

Bloggers who are in other parts of the country....ditto.

Bloggers who try to stir up strife on either side...and encourage thinking about causing one side or the other some type of harm... what is the point?

Bloggers who are members of other fellowships, get the beam out of y'alls eye before you try to get the splinter out of FBC!

Matt, you should not be using this type of talk. And if your are the Messiah like a lot of WD's supporters seem to make you out to be...come quickly and stop all of this mess in the world.

WD, I do not know why this does not seem to post, but I am not sending it on purpose, I just cannot see your tag line at the top of the blog.

Matt, you and Louis may think that "The Chest of Joash Service" is cheesy, but why do you care? Your dissing this almost seventy year tradition seems to indicate that you are just another non FBC member trying to cause trouble for WD and FBC.

You can make fun of it all you want, but you not having a clue about what is behind it makes and then blogging about how "cheesy" it is destroys your credibility.

WD knows what this "tradition" symbolizes and I think that he supports it. At least for the twenty or so years that he was at FBC under Lindsey and Vines.

Therefore your negative comments on it and other things that happen at FBC really is none of your business, in my humble opinion.

I support WD in some of the things that he has blogged about, but that is no excuse to anonymously blog things about Mac Brunson. I know that he said it was not about Mac Brunson, but all of his posting indicate that it was and still is. Even though he has moved his membership.

Why do bloggers from outside FBCJax and/or from other parts of the country care or their opinons count? Maybe because we know that all Christians are part of the family of God? Since when does our concern for fellow Christians have geographical boundaries?

As for this alleged stalking of Mrs. Brunson. That was obviously the 'legal pretext' they came up with to get the subpeona - duh. Gotta have some criminal reason to get those records, so this is what they came up with. Good grief - how is taking a picture of someone jogging IN PUBLIC a crime, even if it actually happened?? (and why on earth would Watchdog care about her jogging??? Talk about an ego.) That is certainly not 'stalking' someone. But it sure is a convenient NON-PROVABLE excuse to get that info, isn't it? Which would explain why, as soon as they got that all-important name, they magically found "no evidence" of any crime. What a surprise. It was nothing more than a ruse to get that info. The leadership of FBCJax continues to show how far from following Jesus they are. Does the hole have a bottom? How sad for your church.

I'm going to refrain from responding to your ridiculous rant as I feel it deserves, because I can't think of a kind way to say anything that comes to mind. But I will say that, for someone who claims not to be a Mac lover or Watchdog hater, you do a pretty good imitation of both. Reminds me of the liberal media that tries to claim objectivity in political matters when they are so obviously in the tank for Obama and the Democrat party. I'm sure they don't see their bias any more than you do.

"As a matter of fact, some of WD's supports think that you are the next "disciple" or "prophet" of Jesus. Some of these bloggers almost deify you. That sir would concern me greatly."

They don't deify me. How silly. But it certainly plants the poison seed. You just insulted them. I just speak the truth of what I have seen and been a part of. I am a recovering Pharisee. Nothing to deify about that.

"Brunson has never once mentionedWD, aka as the accused, or his wife or children from any public forum. WD continues to use a very public platform to rail against Brunson."

And he won't. They don't operate that way. They don't operate out in the open, remember?

"Again, for your to make the libelous claim that Brunson will "do all that he can do to ruin WD" is extremely mean-spirited and not the type of comment coming from one such as yourself who tries to hold himself out as spiritual."

How do you know that he and his leader's won't? Are you privy to every single conversation. A word planted here and there by someone influential can cause great harm. I have seen it too many times.

"What tactics are you referring to? I have not seen "Team Brunson" or anyone at FBC blogging all of this bovine scat about WD. I have not seen anyone start their on blog to blog anything that they want about WD, his wife, or his children. I have not seen any of the tactics as they have been used by WD. What are you trying to come up with?"

Are you serious? You think they would dare blog about it? They are never that obvious, my friend. These are not transparent people as we have seen over and over. BTW: Can you get the WD a copy of the new bylaws?

"Brunson making what you call "nasty" comments from the pulpit is a silly argument. Especially, since any of the comments would have been about some anonymous person. WD blogged for a year and a half before someone felt that probable cause existed to attempt to find out who the blogger was."

How do you know for a fact there was probable cause. You are sure there was ever a stalker?

"Also, how do you know that WD does not have resources? He certainly lives in a much nicer area than most folks that I know. Besides, I am sure that all of the Mac Haters and FBC haters would be willing to donate to him, just like the octomom" if he would let them donate. But then, he would not be anonymous, would he."

How do you know where WD lives?

"Sorry for the long writing, but all of this is wearing very thin. He and his family have joined another fellowship and I am sure that they will embrace them well. I am not one of those MacMuppets, MacSheep, MacLuver or whatever all of the Mac & FBC haters use to describe Mac Brunson and the fellowship at FBC, but I will end on this note.

Bloggers who are not active members of FBC what do you care and why should your opinion count?"

I don't care if our opinion counts with you. I left a quote about the ekklesia above. You still don't get it.

"Bloggers who try to stir up strife on either side...and encourage thinking about causing one side or the other some type of harm... what is the point?"

Truth about the state of what some try to pass of as 'church'. But it isn't according to the NT.

I know nothing of the Chest of Joash. The name does seem cheesy to me.

But your writing that the church has a 70 year tradition of this gives me pause. I should not have said that. Even though it's not something I would do, I would not want to hurt your or the church's feelings on this.

As someone who first left a church and then left religion and then finally left god, it is discussions such as this one that convince me never to return.

That an issue of constitutionally guaranteed rights can get encumbered, weighed down and defeated by petty church politics, personal attacks and unsupported scriptural interpretations seems a sign that a church (and perhaps even the Church) is often incapable and unwilling to reevaluate its hierarchies, its values and its methods, and I, for one, am unwilling to commit my future to an institution that cannot assess itself honestly, cannot accept growth or change, and cannot respect basic rights.

Clicker

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"